Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • A BLACK PILL Here is the harder question. What if all knowledge that begins with

    A BLACK PILL

    Here is the harder question.

    What if all knowledge that begins with the scientific revolution – a term which means ‘that which is beyond human scales of ordinary perception’ – is past the means of comprehension of average people, …

    And (a) it is no longer possible for people to comprehend any of the sciences – and now, with P, even the social sciences.

    And that (b) the reason for the postwar conquest of our people by Abrahamism version 2 (marxism/postmodernism) is because they cannot tolerate tolerate a world beyond their comprehension and therefore are susceptible to the pseudosciences of marxism, the sophisms of postmodernism, and the pseudoscience and sophism of feminism and outright denialism.

    In other words, what If, by completing the sciences, including language(metaphysics), psychology, and social science, and by providing a single commensurable language of all sciences, means that without education (training) it is no longer possible for ordinary people to understand ANY OF THE SCIENCES, not just the physical sciences.

    And so it is not possible to obtain their consent on a constitution of those sciences, only on the policy that results from them – and one’s (my,our, ruling class’s) warranty of those sciences….

    So what if we are just recovering to the level of civic development of Roman civilization today and we are repeating the peak. And without harnessing hydrocarbons we would not have surpassed them. And that without rapid and extensive eugenics, humans can never evolved past the limits of those unable to reason beyond human scale of perception.

    And so devolution is necessary in the present world as it was in the past, and dark ages are going to continue not end. And with each cycle we lose more and more of our hunter-gatherer reserves, until the genome is exhausted and we devolve like the middle east in to ever decreasing genetic ability.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 19:43:00 UTC

  • TRICKS IN MATH, TEXT …. AND LAW by JWarren Prescott My wife and I have had thi

    TRICKS IN MATH, TEXT …. AND LAW

    by JWarren Prescott

    My wife and I have had this conversation several times. Being both electrical engineers we are used to not just regular college level maths, but engineering maths.

    The first thing we say when we see these internet “math problems” is they are written either wrongly or purposefully to confuse.

    Many times there may be two answers due to this obfuscation and ideally, this is supposed to lead someone to say, “Wait, what is really being asked here? What actual or physical problem is trying to be solved?”

    Because if all you have is a disembodied equation with no practical application and the parameters are ill defined, then there is no perceived difference between deception and incompetence.

    Think about this and how our current legal system is written.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 09:59:00 UTC

  • This is not a test of intelligence but of a weakness in mathematical grammar tha

    This is not a test of intelligence but of a weakness in mathematical grammar that makes the reader fall back to the order of operations when the sentence is malformed. The correct form is (1×10)+5. or 5+(1×10), gracefully failing to 5 + 1 * 10 if malformed.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 01:49:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098036868359380993

    Reply addressees: @govttrader

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097647401358241799

    IN REPLY TO:

    @govttrader

    i bet most of you fail this test… https://t.co/Morf7vrV8H

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097647401358241799

  • “Q: 5 +1 * 10 = ?”— This category of math ‘tests’, is not a test of intelligen

    —“Q: 5 +1 * 10 = ?”—

    This category of math ‘tests’, is not a test of intelligence but of a weakness in mathematical grammar that makes the reader fall back to the order of operations when the sentence is malformed. The correct form is (1×10)+5. or 5+(1×10), gracefully failing to 5 + 1 * 10 if malformed.

    Almost seemingly complex questions of philosophy are nothing more than a failure to fully expand idiomatic speech into well formed sentence beginning with “I promise that …”.

    The lower your patterning the more likely you are to see this trick. The higher your patterning (not discreetly seeing the individual glyphs of the text) the more likely you are to miss it. And that is all.

    Tricks don’t test intelligence.

    They insult it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-19 20:54:00 UTC

  • I’m not claiming I’m smart. I’m claiming a lot of people are dim.Which, given th

    I’m not claiming I’m smart. I’m claiming a lot of people are dim.Which, given that the median of the distribution is 100, and 105 is sort of the minimum for repairing a machine, articulating a rational thought by the same operational means, and learning from text, is simply true.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-18 14:02:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097496476962471936

    Reply addressees: @AllFlameComics @UnrankedChevron

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097494934800789506

    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/1097494934800789506

  • We all need generaal rules of cooperation, and we need a hierarchy of graceful i

    We all need generaal rules of cooperation, and we need a hierarchy of graceful increase in precision and graceful failure given our ability, knowledge, and available time and resources – from parables, to histories, to sciences, to calculations.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-18 13:47:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097492787455508480

    Reply addressees: @laurthecatholic @spatiumleo

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097469121250369542

    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/1097469121250369542

  • That which we can observe through instrumental and logical means That which we c

    That which we can observe through instrumental and logical means

    That which we can observe

    That which we can experience

    That which we can deduce from experience

    That which we cannot experience (lack of introspection)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-18 10:52:00 UTC

  • CLOSING IN ON METAPHYSICS AS NON-EXISTENT, or simply cogn sci: demarcation betwe

    CLOSING IN ON METAPHYSICS AS NON-EXISTENT, or simply cogn sci: demarcation between observable and experienceable.

    What is metaphysics other than either operational description(existential) or fiction(inexistential)? Why is M not just another scale of physics just as chemistry another scale of atomic states, and atomic states just another scale of particles, and particles just another scale of fundamental forces, and fundamental forces just another scale of information? Sentience and consiousness are just another scale of the physical world in operation. So just as space time is the result of underlying physical reactions, so are experience and consiousness.

    I am getting closer I think to understanding the confusion of those who claim it exists but I still have to agree with those who say it is handwaving.

    AFAIK. the human experience is just a continuation of physics, and all operations and experiences explicable in fairly simple terms the underlying mechanics of which only matter in producing aggregates.

    Metaphysics as far as I know, simply means the ontology(paradigms) of cognitive science at different levels of commensurable operations (scales), just as physics consists of ontologies(paradigms) at different levels of commensurable operations(scales), and I have seen nothing to alter that understanding (even in aristotle) that proposition other than attempts at sophism, pseudoscience, occult, and fraud. And I am absolutely positive that this will persist.

    My understanding of the reason is that different disciplines use incompatible (incommensurable) paradigms (ontologies) and as such people have to fictionalize relations between them.

    However, operatios (analogy to experience no matter how difficult to experience) serves as a universally commensurable system of measurement within and across all scales whether physical or cognitive (or linguistic) and as such M is not a discipline but simply cog sci, and all attempts to say otherwise are simply fictionalisms to compensate for incommensurability generating demand for fictions.

    In other words fictions produce conflation inflation and opportunity for inductive and deductive error from false premises (ontologies, paradigms), and simply serve as sources of ignorance, fraud, and deceit (Popper).

    Ergo, metaphysics consists simply an extension of physics in the same commensurable language of operations, and there are not multiple metaphysics, just ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit..

    And I can’t find any alternative explanation. And I’m not at all unique in this understanding. (Van Frassen, McGinn, Thomassen cited in SEP). And the anti-positivist criticism does not hold against falsificationism/critical naturalism – only asks for commensurability across scales, to maintain coherence and parsimony in defense against error, bias, fiction and deceit.

    And I am still stuck with the non-anglo desire for empathy with ontologies (experiencing) rather than objectivity(describing).

    Is this purely cultural or are scandinavian(northern european) peoples genetically different in that we have greater distance (agency) between intuition and cognition.

    AFAIK every problem I have encountered that we call metaphysics is simply a grammatical error. In fact, I’m not sure philosophy exists of much other than grammatical errors (Malformed calculations).

    And this is because language is a system of measurement that is only as useful as grammatical demands (tolerances) allow. And that as a system of measurement the only deflationary and inflationary method of speech is operations.

    While certain philosophers have made this claim and have been attacked, these attacks occur under the fallacy of closure in the system of language itself. Which is a common sophomoric argument in philosophical discourse. The only closure is reality itself in toto.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-17 12:05:00 UTC

  • TRY IT. by Bill Johnson How could one outsmart a reasonable man (like Curt) who

    TRY IT.

    by Bill Johnson

    How could one outsmart a reasonable man (like Curt) who is merely pointing at a truth-testing device? A standard of measure with near NIST-Traceable Calibration. 😉

    Curt is not saying he is unbeatable. Rather he is subjecting Propertarianism to the crucible. Bring on the heat.

    To attack Curt, is not to attack Propertarianism. That would be a fool’s errand. Could they say Curt are pointing at Propertarianism with the wrong hand or finger?

    Could they say you are not pointing at Propertarianism?

    That might be more irrational than a Christian *Scientist* saying his cancer and pain are not real.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-16 13:53:00 UTC

  • (Please don’t try to outsmart me. It’s not going to work. Not because I’m all th

    (Please don’t try to outsmart me. It’s not going to work. Not because I’m all that smart, but because propertarian thought is a bit of a superpower when combined with any reasonable degree of cross disciplinary knowledge. We specialize in identifying and explaining fraud. Either you will put forth a legitimate criticism or you will make an ass of yourself. I know every weakness in P. They are problems of pragmatic application not errors given the ubiquity of lying, and investments in lying. There are however no holes in P.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-16 13:15:00 UTC