MEANING (dimensional definition) (a) normative content (relations) (market) (b) habitual content (relations) (personal) (c) intentional content (relations) (d) extended (externalities) content (relations) (e) important (value) content (relations) A network of relations(associations) reducible to a network of analogies to experience. Where experience can refer to any combination of physical, emotional, and mental experiences. ETYMOLOGY: “INTEND” “intend, have in mind,” Old English mænan “to mean, intend, signify; tell, say; complain, lament,” from West Germanic *mainijan (source also of Old Frisian mena “to signify,” Old Saxon menian “to intend, signify, make known,” Dutch menen, German meinen “think, suppose, be of the opinion”), from PIE *meino- “opinion, intent” (source also of Old Church Slavonic meniti “to think, have an opinion,” Old Irish mian “wish, desire,” Welsh mwyn “enjoyment”), perhaps from root *men- (1) “to think.” Conversational question you know what I mean? attested by 1834.
Theme: Measurement
-
Definition of Meaning
MEANING (dimensional definition) (a) normative content (relations) (market) (b) habitual content (relations) (personal) (c) intentional content (relations) (d) extended (externalities) content (relations) (e) important (value) content (relations) A network of relations(associations) reducible to a network of analogies to experience. Where experience can refer to any combination of physical, emotional, and mental experiences. ETYMOLOGY: “INTEND” “intend, have in mind,” Old English mænan “to mean, intend, signify; tell, say; complain, lament,” from West Germanic *mainijan (source also of Old Frisian mena “to signify,” Old Saxon menian “to intend, signify, make known,” Dutch menen, German meinen “think, suppose, be of the opinion”), from PIE *meino- “opinion, intent” (source also of Old Church Slavonic meniti “to think, have an opinion,” Old Irish mian “wish, desire,” Welsh mwyn “enjoyment”), perhaps from root *men- (1) “to think.” Conversational question you know what I mean? attested by 1834.
-
Philosophy = Choice of preference and good. Science = existence, description and
Philosophy = Choice of preference and good. Science = existence, description and decidability. As such Propertarianism only states how to measure aesthetic content. However, there is a difference between that which is true, good, and preferable. You may not prefer the truth. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-14 18:32:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1007329830482870277
Reply addressees: @mightyboom_
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1007028131130216448
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/1007028131130216448
-
DEFINITION OF MEANING MEANING (dimensional definition) (a) normative content (re
DEFINITION OF MEANING
MEANING (dimensional definition)
(a) normative content (relations) (market)
(b) habitual content (relations) (personal)
(c) intentional content (relations)
(d) extended (externalities) content (relations)
(e) important (value) content (relations)
A network of relations(associations) reducible to a network of analogies to experience. Where experience can refer to any combination of physical, emotional, and mental experiences.
ETYMOLOGY: “INTEND”
“intend, have in mind,” Old English mænan “to mean, intend, signify; tell, say; complain, lament,” from West Germanic *mainijan (source also of Old Frisian mena “to signify,” Old Saxon menian “to intend, signify, make known,” Dutch menen, German meinen “think, suppose, be of the opinion”), from PIE *meino- “opinion, intent” (source also of Old Church Slavonic meniti “to think, have an opinion,” Old Irish mian “wish, desire,” Welsh mwyn “enjoyment”), perhaps from root *men- (1) “to think.” Conversational question you know what I mean? attested by 1834.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-14 08:00:00 UTC
-
OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE EXPRESSING SCIENCE: THE LEAST FALSE METHOD OF REACHING ROME
OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE EXPRESSING SCIENCE: THE LEAST FALSE METHOD OF REACHING ROME
—“Science is both the method of inquiry and the body of knowledge gained by that method’s application. A priori knowledge applies only to the abstract, once it interacts with the real world the test of any tool or paradigm is how effective it is in predicting and changing it. As there’s only one real world, any framework or method of inquiry that is effective in interfacing with it will approach the same results. All roads lead to Rome, as it were.”—Jason Johnson
>Curt Doolittle ^ This is the most important argument really. Although I would refine it to say ‘there is only one most parsimonious (shortest) road to Rome.’
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-12 13:09:00 UTC
-
A Universally Verifiable Truth?
—“Curt do you believe in the notion of a universally verifiable truth?”—Mark Joyner (FWIW apparently this post was interpreted by mark as offensive. I didn’t mean it to be.) Um. You probably can’t comprehend how …. sophomoric that question is, because it’s so common a sophomoric question that like belief in flying donkeys it’s a given. 1) A person may speak truthfully… if you know what that means: For every phenomenon there exists a most parsimonious description possible in a language that can be uttered by man. To state the most parsimonious description of possible one needs perfect knowledge. We are rarely if ever possessed of perfect knowledge. When we are, it is all but certain we speak of a tautology or a triviality (reductio) – and meaningless. So even if we speak the most parsimonious description possible we may not know we do, and as such must assume our description is forever contingent. Ergo all *testimony* (truth claim) of any substance is forever contingent. 2) We can speak in at least three categories: axiomatic, theoretic, and fictional(analogistic). We can verify the internal consistency of an axiomatic statement, and we can attempt to construct of proof of such an axiomatic statement – assuming that the axioms themselves are internally consistent. We can declare axioms. We call internally consistent tests ‘true’ but they are merely proofs, not truths. Mathematics is axiomatic. They are only contingent upon the declared axioms. We can only try to falsify the theoretical, and see if it survives falsification. We cannot declare laws, only discover them. We call theories (descriptions) true if they are consistent, correspondent, possible, complete, and coherent. This is a far higher standard that the must ‘simpler’ axiomatic. Real world phenomenon are theoretic. We do not recognize the need to test the internal consistency or external correspondence (operational possibility) or coherence of fictions (analogies). Imaginary phenomenon only need be meaningful, nothing else. One can verify the existence of evidence. But this tells us only that the evidence exists and therefore claims are not false. It does not tell us that the theory is true. So, one does not ‘verify’ a truth proposition, only a test of internal consistency of axioms. One tests the survivability of a theory. Because it is forever contingent. Hence why we have juries.
-
A Universally Verifiable Truth?
—“Curt do you believe in the notion of a universally verifiable truth?”—Mark Joyner (FWIW apparently this post was interpreted by mark as offensive. I didn’t mean it to be.) Um. You probably can’t comprehend how …. sophomoric that question is, because it’s so common a sophomoric question that like belief in flying donkeys it’s a given. 1) A person may speak truthfully… if you know what that means: For every phenomenon there exists a most parsimonious description possible in a language that can be uttered by man. To state the most parsimonious description of possible one needs perfect knowledge. We are rarely if ever possessed of perfect knowledge. When we are, it is all but certain we speak of a tautology or a triviality (reductio) – and meaningless. So even if we speak the most parsimonious description possible we may not know we do, and as such must assume our description is forever contingent. Ergo all *testimony* (truth claim) of any substance is forever contingent. 2) We can speak in at least three categories: axiomatic, theoretic, and fictional(analogistic). We can verify the internal consistency of an axiomatic statement, and we can attempt to construct of proof of such an axiomatic statement – assuming that the axioms themselves are internally consistent. We can declare axioms. We call internally consistent tests ‘true’ but they are merely proofs, not truths. Mathematics is axiomatic. They are only contingent upon the declared axioms. We can only try to falsify the theoretical, and see if it survives falsification. We cannot declare laws, only discover them. We call theories (descriptions) true if they are consistent, correspondent, possible, complete, and coherent. This is a far higher standard that the must ‘simpler’ axiomatic. Real world phenomenon are theoretic. We do not recognize the need to test the internal consistency or external correspondence (operational possibility) or coherence of fictions (analogies). Imaginary phenomenon only need be meaningful, nothing else. One can verify the existence of evidence. But this tells us only that the evidence exists and therefore claims are not false. It does not tell us that the theory is true. So, one does not ‘verify’ a truth proposition, only a test of internal consistency of axioms. One tests the survivability of a theory. Because it is forever contingent. Hence why we have juries.
-
“THE GRID” axiomatic,….theoretic,…….and analogistic. deductive…..inducti
“THE GRID”
axiomatic,....theoretic,.......and analogistic. deductive.....inductive, ......and abductive. proof, .......truth, ..........and meaningful. ideal,........real,............and imaginary. consistent....correspondent,...and coherent
-
The Process of Cognitive Development
|Cognition| Analogistic > Theoretical > Axiomatic > Operational by Bill Joslin So the process of cognitive development and concept creation would follow this spectrum. 1) Analogistic : abductive, fictional, imaginary, free association, imaginable – hypothesis creation. 2) Theoretical – inductive, narrative, possible, hypothesis development 3) Axiomatic – deductive, descriptive, deterministic, testable, probable, provable law proposal 4) Operational – descriptive, directive, decidable, actionable, warrant able, testable, falsifiable – creation(discovery) of law A (spectrum) process of constant disambiguation leading to more effective action (increases in agency) – which is why some may get stuck at one position and then assert each as separate discrete entities which are opposed to each other (a type of cherry picking) versus steps toward disambiguation (I think you did it Bill Joslin …. damn!) 😉
-
The Process of Cognitive Development
|Cognition| Analogistic > Theoretical > Axiomatic > Operational by Bill Joslin So the process of cognitive development and concept creation would follow this spectrum. 1) Analogistic : abductive, fictional, imaginary, free association, imaginable – hypothesis creation. 2) Theoretical – inductive, narrative, possible, hypothesis development 3) Axiomatic – deductive, descriptive, deterministic, testable, probable, provable law proposal 4) Operational – descriptive, directive, decidable, actionable, warrant able, testable, falsifiable – creation(discovery) of law A (spectrum) process of constant disambiguation leading to more effective action (increases in agency) – which is why some may get stuck at one position and then assert each as separate discrete entities which are opposed to each other (a type of cherry picking) versus steps toward disambiguation (I think you did it Bill Joslin …. damn!) 😉