RT @charlesmurray: 1. A collection of test scores can be used to predict a criterion measure such as freshman GPA.
2. A test biased agains…
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-31 03:41:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774280864739840345
I don’t use number systems, either cardinal or ordinal for natural orders. I use operational names. However if you have some suggestions I’d invest time in considering it?
I should probably explain that numbers are useful for weights of relations (vectors), and we certainly could use numbers as arbitrary but unique names for both sums (points) and relations (vectors). But at that point, as arbitrary unique names, they are no longer ‘numbers’ per say, as both names, positional names, and values, but only names, without further positional or value content. (which is very Cantorian, really. 😉 )
Reply addressees: @JohannNetram
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-30 21:53:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774193204264337408
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774142205571031257
RL: Suggested Thinking:
I’ve learned to understand these differences (Homer, vs Plato, vs Aristotle as systems of measurement (or understanding) consisting of paradigms of permissible dimensions, vocabularies, logic and grammar and the Aristotle/Plato division as an insufficient dichotomy in an insufficient spectrum:
… 1. Inflationary (Theology, Wisdom), (One way) Homer
… 2. Conflationary (Philosophy, Reason), (Bridge) Plato
… 3. and Deflationary (Empiricism, testimony) (Many Ways) Aristotle
So This Spectrum Is Available To Man:
Sensation > Embodiment > Proprioception > World Prediction > Self Prediction > Other Prediction > imitation-sympathy-empathy > Language > anthropomorphism > mythology > religion > theology > philosophy and reason > logic and rationalism > science and empiricism and mathematics > first principles, construction, and computation > bayesian accounting > mechanical prediction > (recursion). (See: https://t.co/b9zyOB7whc)
The Spectrum of Measurements
In other words,
1 – Increasing falsification of imagination, intuition and instinct vs increasing justification(satisfaction) of imagination, intuition, and instinct.
2 – Increasing abstraction (mechanization, disambiguation) vs Increasing anthropomorphism(experience, conflation)
3 – Increasing precision from which additional logical deduction is possible vs decreasing precision from which broader association is possible.
The Spectrum of Agency in Mind
This follows the evolution of the mind by the increase in volume of memory, and the hierarchy of memory from sensation to the prefrontal cortex.
Cognitive Processes:
Sensation > disambiguation > organization > association > valuation > Instinct > Intuition(spirit) > imagination (mind) > daydreaming (undirected) > thinking (directing) > reasoning (wayfinding) > calculating (inputs into outputs) > computing (using external tools such as writing and numbers etc)
The Reason for the Choice?
So, instead I would say, how much do you WANT or NEED to intuit and feel (the spirit) vs how much to you want or need to ACT upon (mind and reason)?
So are you favoring devotion to experience (internal) or to action (external) and is this difference a choice, a strength, or a weakness?
Hugs as always.
Curt
Reply addressees: @whatifalthist
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-27 15:36:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1773011284780269568
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1772866469027602780
Yes to the first. The second is true but, not consistent with the first. Operationalize them both and then try to express the second (silver) as the first (golden)
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-23 15:09:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1771554832182096187
Reply addressees: @EP_Freely
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1771548158582985194
Yes, bigger cars and trucks are more likely to kill someone…
Another obvious statistic that illustrates people will believe what they want whenever they can get away with it. https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1770582542007128564
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-22 22:07:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1771297571803197940
https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1770582542007128564
Another reason I reject survey (self reported) data (and why the clown world behavioral sciences can’t replicate) is:
—“smarter people tending to give moderate responses”—
ie: Dumber people give more extreme responses. https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1766564841232154999
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-22 22:05:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1771297173428199768
https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1766564841232154999
Another reason I reject survey (self reported) data (and why the clown world behavioral sciences can’t replicate) is:
—“smarter people tending to give moderate responses”—
ie: Dumber people give more extreme responses.
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-22 22:05:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1771297173356892160
There are a number of videos on ‘the method’ on our youtube channel.
If I try to explain it to you it won’t make as much sense as trying to make use of it.
That said:
I use ‘continuous recursive disambiguation by adversarial competition by reduction of any dimension to a system of measurement. Again, by enumeration, operationalization, and organization into a spectrum by adversarial elimination.
In other words, I build up a constructive logic (just as evolution did) from the polarity of the quantum background to human behavior.
In practice there are about twenty-some-odd rules that explain nearly everything we care about.
Learning how to apply them isn’t that different from learning how to apply geometry.
The differences lies in the unlearning of your presumptions and biases.
If it was easy someone would have done it before me.
It’s not.
I just happen to be born at the right time with enough other shoulders of other giants to stand on.
Reply addressees: @RunicSigil
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-21 03:15:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770650426666352640
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770647152743915605
Let us say that you have a system of measurement.
That system includes say, X dimensions of measurement – just as, say, we previously did not understand the solar system, then galaxy, and then or universe at large scale, or the atomic, particle, quantum, or quantum background.
Now, what if the system of measurement you’re using to make the assessments you do, are insufficient for the same reasons: the scale of distribution of your measurements and the number of dimensions you measure?
Now, in addition, what if your selection bias seeks to maximize correlations, instead of maximize falsifications?
That would cause you to include partial truths when you could exclude even those.
And as such could see the patterns of causality that bring about consequential patterns that are destructive.
In other words, I can make true general statements about distributions of unlimited scale (first principle) despite outliers, and you cannot either do so, nor observe the patterns that would exist if you threw out the half truths.
Then having done so you could, as I do, make truthful statements about general rules while tolerating outliers – and even criticize those outliers given their limits and failings both directly express, implied, and metaphysically presumed.
So no, I do not err. But then it would take you quite a bit of effort to learn my (our) work sufficiently to develop that skill and expertise.
All I have done here is illustrate why you might want to.
Because some of us seek thruth regardless of cost, so that we may work on problems of time and scale. And some of you seek utility and justification in-time and at personal scale.
You must only make that choice by two criteria (a) capacity to learn more despite the painful truths and work of doing so, and (b) willingness to do the work necessary to learn that skill set and discipline.
Affections
Curt
Reply addressees: @JerryWilly1st @o18953970 @whatifalthist
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-20 19:57:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770540092949512192
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770533102437175512
I’m simply stating the obvious: philosophy(rationalism) is the bridge between superstition and science due to the limits of reason without instrumentation necessary for science: Or more correctly between instinct-intuition, imagination, language, testimony, and measurement.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE LOGICS:
Embodiment
.. Consciousness
.. .. Speech
.. .. .. Narrative
.. .. .. .. Anthropomorphism (superstition)
.. .. .. .. .. Mythology
.. .. .. .. .. .. Religion (systemization)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. Philosophy(consistency, geometry)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. History (Analysis)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Empiricism (Testimony, Algebra)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Science (Instrumentation, calculus)
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Operationalism(First principles, Computation)
Reply addressees: @Saurabh_Shah1 @radiofreenw
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-20 18:26:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770517177063362560
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770514900063858758