[H]ow do we demarcate math, science, law, economics, history, philosophy, literature, mythology, and theology? (Best diagram I can do with unformatted text) ANALOGY AND CONFLATION ^ | … INFLATION | … … Literature …-> Mythology …-> [Theology] . … Essay … Philosophy … [Sophistry] . Law ->Economics ->History ->[Deceit] |->[FICTIONALISMS| . … Science …-> Technology …-> [Pseudoscience] . … … Mathematics …-> Logic …-> [illogical] | | … DEFLATION v MEASUREMENT AND DISAMBIGUATION As far as I know this diagram cannot be false.
Theme: Measurement
-
Simplified Map of The Grammars
[H]ow do we demarcate math, science, law, economics, history, philosophy, literature, mythology, and theology? (Best diagram I can do with unformatted text) ANALOGY AND CONFLATION ^ | … INFLATION | … … Literature …-> Mythology …-> [Theology] . … Essay … Philosophy … [Sophistry] . Law ->Economics ->History ->[Deceit] |->[FICTIONALISMS| . … Science …-> Technology …-> [Pseudoscience] . … … Mathematics …-> Logic …-> [illogical] | | … DEFLATION v MEASUREMENT AND DISAMBIGUATION As far as I know this diagram cannot be false.
-
Context
Operationalism: Testimony using a sequence of intuitionistically(incentives), logically(speech), and physically testable actions. Operational constraints: Realism( Material, Persistent), Naturalism(physical rules of the material universe), Operationalism(description as human actions), Empiricism(observations of results reduced to analogy of experience by physical or logical means), rational choice, reciprocity. Science: the production of testimony by under operationalism Philosophy: “it’s sorta like that but I can’t explain how”: Analogies. Excuse making. Making stuff up. Sigh.
-
Context
Operationalism: Testimony using a sequence of intuitionistically(incentives), logically(speech), and physically testable actions. Operational constraints: Realism( Material, Persistent), Naturalism(physical rules of the material universe), Operationalism(description as human actions), Empiricism(observations of results reduced to analogy of experience by physical or logical means), rational choice, reciprocity. Science: the production of testimony by under operationalism Philosophy: “it’s sorta like that but I can’t explain how”: Analogies. Excuse making. Making stuff up. Sigh.
-
motions are just measures of changes in property
motions are just measures of changes in property. https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/emotions-are-just-measures-of-changes-in-property/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 20:26:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232401593104052224
-
[E]motions are just measures of changes in property.
By Martin Štěpán [E]motions are not moral or immoral, they just measure changes in property. At most, you can say they’re bad when they’re measuring incorrectly but that’s not about morality but about the brain working sub-optimally. I think what might also be going on is conflation with Christian deadly sins. But these, as far as I know, are judged by actions. So, greed can motivate a rational agent to accumulate wealth by engaging in reciprocal exchanges where parasitism and predation are sufficiently dis-incentivized. Lust can motivate one deepen connection with his mate and to produce a next generation, especially, again, where the alternatives are sufficiently dis-incentivized. Vengeance can lead one to punish what deserves to be punished and thus dis-incentivize the recipient of vengeance from repeating it (or else removing him from the society and the gene-pool) as well as dis-incentivize other from doing the same. Self-deception might lead to behave in more moral ways, such as when one deceives himself that there is an afterlife and morality our actions in this life will determine whether it will be pleasurable or painful. Empathy can often be extended to people who deserve none or who cannot or wouldn’t reciprocate, enabling parasitism.
-
[E]motions are just measures of changes in property.
By Martin Štěpán [E]motions are not moral or immoral, they just measure changes in property. At most, you can say they’re bad when they’re measuring incorrectly but that’s not about morality but about the brain working sub-optimally. I think what might also be going on is conflation with Christian deadly sins. But these, as far as I know, are judged by actions. So, greed can motivate a rational agent to accumulate wealth by engaging in reciprocal exchanges where parasitism and predation are sufficiently dis-incentivized. Lust can motivate one deepen connection with his mate and to produce a next generation, especially, again, where the alternatives are sufficiently dis-incentivized. Vengeance can lead one to punish what deserves to be punished and thus dis-incentivize the recipient of vengeance from repeating it (or else removing him from the society and the gene-pool) as well as dis-incentivize other from doing the same. Self-deception might lead to behave in more moral ways, such as when one deceives himself that there is an afterlife and morality our actions in this life will determine whether it will be pleasurable or painful. Empathy can often be extended to people who deserve none or who cannot or wouldn’t reciprocate, enabling parasitism.
-
Simple Deep Understanding of Operational Language
(core) (operational language) (or, why you don’t get it at first) Jason asks, “is this sentence correct ePrime?” We probably need to stop using the ePrime reference and simply teach people the steps to transforming fuzzy intuitive language to very clear operational language. The first step is eliminating the Copula (the connector): the verb to-be. This connector says “imply the connection” it does not state the connection. This is how ‘suggestion’ (deceit) is inserted into our otherwise very precise, english language. It’s the basis of all sophism. The second step, which may be necessary to complete the first step requires starting sentences with the subject rather than the actor – and this is what’s probably causing your struggle. P and ePrime ask you to think in terms of actor rather than subject. To put the actor before the subject in composing your “episode”. Thinking in, writing in, speaking in actors, adds a computational cycle, because the more advanced our thinking the more we’re thinking about subjects rather than actors. And the more ‘generalized’ our statement – which means the more masculine and analytic – the more the subject is the basis for context and the less the actor is the basis for content. So yes, operational language is slightly more burdensome, because it is more precise – at least until you habituate it. The Example: –“With the ability to protect it with violent defense, exercised at will, on an individual and group level, “— Change to: —At an individual or group level, [we / they] [can / develop the ability to] protect [it / or restate subject] with violent defense, exercised at will.”— Phrase: 1 – actor 2 – acted upon 3 – consequence So: 1 – Repeat with Collection of Phrases. 2- Producing a Complete sentence. 3- That explicitly states the COMPLETE transformation (Transaction) In other worlds:
- Actor, Operation, Subject: “John threw the ball (to mark who caught it).”
- Subject, Actor, Operation: “The ball john threw (to mark who caught it.)”
and not: Language in operational terms is an accounting system That’s the secret of operational language “full accounting of changes in state”. Phrase (debit) Journal Entry , Phrase (credit) Journal Entry Sentence = Ledger Entry. Paragraph = Income Statement Story = Balance Sheet If you begin to see ‘the grammars’ in everything you will finally understand why P is so powerful … and it will, at some point, horrify you with wonder at it all. Language is a means of measurement. Arithmetic is a very precise language Accounting is just a very precise language. Geometry is another precise language Programming is another precise language P-Law is another precise language P-Testimony is the most precise language possible All language functions as a system of measurement using measurements provided by the human body. and accounting of changes in state in that measurement system. Why? Because the brain does nothing other than detect and predict, changes in state. We can either account well(operational language), or account poorly(ordinary language), or account deceptively (postmodern/feminist language) I hope this helps because it is the summary of the meaning of operational prose. ==== attn: Bill Joslin
-
Simple Deep Understanding of Operational Language
(core) (operational language) (or, why you don’t get it at first) Jason asks, “is this sentence correct ePrime?” We probably need to stop using the ePrime reference and simply teach people the steps to transforming fuzzy intuitive language to very clear operational language. The first step is eliminating the Copula (the connector): the verb to-be. This connector says “imply the connection” it does not state the connection. This is how ‘suggestion’ (deceit) is inserted into our otherwise very precise, english language. It’s the basis of all sophism. The second step, which may be necessary to complete the first step requires starting sentences with the subject rather than the actor – and this is what’s probably causing your struggle. P and ePrime ask you to think in terms of actor rather than subject. To put the actor before the subject in composing your “episode”. Thinking in, writing in, speaking in actors, adds a computational cycle, because the more advanced our thinking the more we’re thinking about subjects rather than actors. And the more ‘generalized’ our statement – which means the more masculine and analytic – the more the subject is the basis for context and the less the actor is the basis for content. So yes, operational language is slightly more burdensome, because it is more precise – at least until you habituate it. The Example: –“With the ability to protect it with violent defense, exercised at will, on an individual and group level, “— Change to: —At an individual or group level, [we / they] [can / develop the ability to] protect [it / or restate subject] with violent defense, exercised at will.”— Phrase: 1 – actor 2 – acted upon 3 – consequence So: 1 – Repeat with Collection of Phrases. 2- Producing a Complete sentence. 3- That explicitly states the COMPLETE transformation (Transaction) In other worlds:
- Actor, Operation, Subject: “John threw the ball (to mark who caught it).”
- Subject, Actor, Operation: “The ball john threw (to mark who caught it.)”
and not: Language in operational terms is an accounting system That’s the secret of operational language “full accounting of changes in state”. Phrase (debit) Journal Entry , Phrase (credit) Journal Entry Sentence = Ledger Entry. Paragraph = Income Statement Story = Balance Sheet If you begin to see ‘the grammars’ in everything you will finally understand why P is so powerful … and it will, at some point, horrify you with wonder at it all. Language is a means of measurement. Arithmetic is a very precise language Accounting is just a very precise language. Geometry is another precise language Programming is another precise language P-Law is another precise language P-Testimony is the most precise language possible All language functions as a system of measurement using measurements provided by the human body. and accounting of changes in state in that measurement system. Why? Because the brain does nothing other than detect and predict, changes in state. We can either account well(operational language), or account poorly(ordinary language), or account deceptively (postmodern/feminist language) I hope this helps because it is the summary of the meaning of operational prose. ==== attn: Bill Joslin
-
The Qualia of Geometry Is Uniform
The Qualia of Geometry Is Uniform https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/the-qualia-of-geometry-is-uniform/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 19:45:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232391136960032770