Theme: Measurement

  • ASKING CHATGPT FOR HELP IN TERMINOLOGY (It matters how precisely you ask the que

    ASKING CHATGPT FOR HELP IN TERMINOLOGY
    (It matters how precisely you ask the question)

    CurtD
    Please help me understand something. I have a problem with the word ‘dynamic’ or ‘dynamics’ because I perceive it as a ‘filler word’ like ‘thing’ that conveniently circumvents the…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-26 22:36:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762245161268945357

  • ASKING CHATGPT FOR HELP IN TERMINOLOGY (It matters how precisely you ask the que

    ASKING CHATGPT FOR HELP IN TERMINOLOGY
    (It matters how precisely you ask the question)

    CurtD
    Please help me understand something. I have a problem with the word ‘dynamic’ or ‘dynamics’ because I perceive it as a ‘filler word’ like ‘thing’ that conveniently circumvents the causality of the process that we’re describing. I know that I have learned from E-Prime, Operational Language, and Performative truth (testimony), that most pretense of knowledge, and most inductive reasoning from that pretense of knowledge, is the source of sophistry and pseudoscience. So am I wrong in this perception (I hardly think so), or is there another term or set of terms that I could use (and you could use) to explain the behavior of an adaptive system instead of ‘dynamic’?

    ChatGPT
    Your perception of “dynamic” or “dynamics” as potentially being filler terms is not without merit, especially within the context of your emphasis on causality, operational language, and performative truth. These concepts advocate for precise, verifiable, and actionable language that avoids ambiguity and encourages clarity in communication, particularly in scientific and philosophical discourse.

    The term “dynamic” is often used to describe systems or processes that are characterized by constant change, activity, or progress. While it serves a purpose in summarily conveying the nature of such systems, your concern lies in its potential to gloss over the specific causal mechanisms and interactions that drive these changes. This can indeed lead to a superficial understanding or explanation of complex phenomena, which is at odds with a rigorous epistemological approach.

    To address this concern and align with the principles of E-Prime, Operational Language, and Performative Truth, you might consider adopting more specific language that explicitly describes the causal processes and interactions within adaptive systems.

    Here are a few suggestions:

    Causal Mechanisms: Instead of referring to a system as “dynamic,” describe the specific causal mechanisms that drive its behavior. This directs attention to the underlying processes and how they produce change.

    Interactive Processes: Highlight the interactions between components of the system that lead to its adaptive behavior. This term emphasizes the relational aspects and the network of influences within the system.

    Systemic Evolution: Use this term to describe the adaptive changes of a system over time, focusing on how it evolves in response to internal and external stimuli. This captures the idea of progression or development without losing sight of causality.

    Feedback Loops: When explaining the adaptability of a system, discuss the presence and role of feedback loops. These are crucial in adaptive systems, where output from the system is fed back as input, leading to changes in the system’s behavior.

    Adaptive Response: Instead of “dynamic response,” specify that the system exhibits adaptive responses to specific conditions or stimuli. This term is precise and highlights the system’s capacity to adjust or modify its behavior in light of new information.

    Operational Dynamics: If you prefer to retain a variation of “dynamics,” consider coupling it with “operational” to focus on the operational aspects of the system’s dynamics. This combination stresses the mechanisms and principles that govern the system’s behavior.

    By employing these alternatives, you can maintain the precision and rigor that your work demands, ensuring that descriptions and explanations are both causally transparent and aligned with your epistemological standards. This approach not only avoids the pitfalls of vague terminology but also enriches the discourse by providing a clearer understanding of the complex interactions and processes at play in adaptive systems.

    CurtD
    Hmm… Adaptive Operations and Processes sounds about right to me?

    ChatGPT
    “Adaptive Operations and Processes” is an excellent choice for a term that combines the clarity and specificity you’re seeking. It effectively captures the essence of systems or phenomena that are characterized by their ability to change or adjust in response to their environment or internal dynamics.

    Here’s why it works well:

    Adaptive: The term emphasizes the system’s capacity for adjustment and change, highlighting the evolutionary aspect of the process.

    Operations: By using “operations,” you focus on the specific actions, mechanisms, or functions that enable the system to adapt, providing a clear view of the causal elements at play.

    Processes: This adds an additional layer of depth, suggesting a series of actions or steps taken by the system to achieve adaptation. It implies a sequence or flow of activities that lead to the system’s dynamic behavior.

    Together, “Adaptive Operations and Processes” conveys a comprehensive understanding of how systems respond and adjust to changes, emphasizing both the mechanisms (operations) and the flow or sequence of actions (processes) involved in adaptation. This term aligns well with a rigorous analytical approach, ensuring that explanations remain grounded in specific, actionable, and causal terms.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-26 22:36:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762245160698597376

  • Thinking across the spectrum from auto-association > reason > calculation(in the

    Thinking across the spectrum from auto-association > reason > calculation(in the broad sense) > computation (in the narrow sense) consists of wayfinding using some number of anchors of attention to achieve some objective.
    Intuiting (cognitive-predictive) and feeling (emotional-valuative) occur prior to conscious observation of those effects.
    I would say that intuitions(and feelings) produce a field of possibilities and that reason is used to focus on and work through them.
    If you have to make a choice, it’s necessary to exert the cost of reason (thinking) to resolve the conflict brought about by the uncertainty.

    Reply addressees: @lerpclide40920 @spaceangelvoice


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-26 20:07:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762207748278697984

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762206197753794848

  • “In paradigms of thought, the margin of error is the sin committed by the speake

    –“In paradigms of thought, the margin of error is the sin committed by the speaker.”– Dr Brad


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-24 16:32:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1761428998922334413

  • The “It’s hard so it must be false” trope. Universal commensurability requires d

    The “It’s hard so it must be false” trope.
    Universal commensurability requires drawing from multiple disciplines, which in turn requires learning principles from multiple disciplines. Combining the logic of programming, cognitive science, linguistics, economics, and law is simply…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-24 10:11:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1761333073134698879

    Reply addressees: @pc20917967 @NoahRevoy @NatLawInstitute @ThruTheHayes @LukeWeinhagen @realJohnVictor @AutistocratMS @TheMcMullan

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1761324100314714472

  • (That’s not correct. It’s better to say above 160 we can’t really measure anythi

    (That’s not correct. It’s better to say above 160 we can’t really measure anything.)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-20 02:26:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759766502012485655

    Reply addressees: @JohnPliskin6 @L0m3z @AlexaRuthless

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759765748719739117

  • RT @cremieuxrecueil: Intelligence tests are not biased, thus precluding “differe

    RT @cremieuxrecueil: Intelligence tests are not biased, thus precluding “different cultures” from explaining why groups perform differently…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-18 04:56:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759079352354967867

  • LEARNING P-METHOD, P-LOGIC, P-SCIENCE, P-LAW Spent some time thinking about whic

    LEARNING P-METHOD, P-LOGIC, P-SCIENCE, P-LAW
    Spent some time thinking about which videos we need to produce next, and reviewed our “Method” series. Which, though directed to a college educated (maybe STEM) audience does it’s job. And realistically, it’s only missing one principle – influence-coercion and the resulting organizations of mankind. I can, assuming my personal crises are over for a bit, ‘squeeze in’ a few days to produce those videos. And I might want to just for the sense of accomplishment compared to the drudgery of writing.

    But it made me think again, that while P appears complicated there are a very simple set of rules that the entire universe is based upon. Most of this content is already in the method series. The italic are not yet:
    1) The method (continuous recursive adversarial disambiguation by operationalization and serialization).
    2) The Grammars (the resulting hierarchy of paradigms whether deflationary or inflationary or deceptive.)
    3) The First Principles (the result of the method)
    And within the first principles:
    – a) The Ternary Logic of Evolutionary Computation ( the first principle of all existence)
    – b) The first principles of physics ‘cooperation’
    – c) The first principles of life cooperation
    – d) The first principles of sexual cooperation
    – e) The first principles of sentient cooperation
    …. – The ternary logic of cooperation
    …. – The ternary logic of sex differences in cognition and behavior
    …. – The ternary logic of organization by influence-coercion
    …. …. – The ternary logic of elites by i-c.
    …. …. – The ternary logic of institutions by i-c.
    …. …. – The ternary logic and path dependence of civilizations.
    – The first principles of Group (population) differences in evolution and custom.
    – The difference between surviving civilizations as a reflection of the first principles of group differences in evolution and custom including path dependence in institution formation.

    So I really need to produce the sex differences and influence-coercion videos to be able to say “look, just go watch the videos a few times. You’ll get it.”

    Which would simplify my life a bit. 😉

    FWIW:
    1) the ‘foundations’ series is largely about cognitive science so that you understand where all the above is coming from. 😉
    2) The choice series is largely why we must have a revolution to restructure our governments so that they are no longer parasitic and globalist but instead, nationalist and productive.

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-16 16:08:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1758523636778938368

  • The people need a provisioning of the system of measurement provided by primitiv

    The people need a provisioning of the system of measurement provided by primitive anthropomorphism. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be taught by other means than ‘god’. It just mean’s it’s easy to do so by ‘god’ or ‘gods’. No reason we couldn’t substitute ‘the universe’.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-14 18:24:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757833101156155394

    Reply addressees: @patriciamdavis @Gundissemenator @whatifalthist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757813290678522315

  • Q: –“Curt, can you recommend a book that explains these grammars/linguistics in

    Q: –“Curt, can you recommend a book that explains these grammars/linguistics in more detail?”–

    No such book exists.

    Simple version: given the ternary logic of the first principles of the universe, during the process of evolutionary computation, we observe the emergence (evolution) of new sets (paradigms) of ‘things’ (nouns), ‘actions'(verbs), and ‘survival’ (agreement/not), and the the logic of their interactions, we capture as ‘rules of continuous recursive disambiguation (grammars), for each paradigm (discipline).

    In addition mankind can subtract dimensions of meaning from that vocabulary, or add dimensions of meaning to that vocabulary, and as such produce additional grammars (methodologies) such as arithmetic, mathematics, algebra or physics, chemistry, biology, or reason, calculation, computation, or say. counting, accounting, and bayesian accounting.

    In addition mankind can inflate and conflate and obscure meaning – means of fiction, fictionalization, an deception.

    The videos explain it.
    https://t.co/m8y74Jkl4K

    You could also start here: https://t.co/O6szQMS5CD

    Reply addressees: @DwightExMachina @X_Filosofo @AshaLogos @sovereignbrah


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-13 19:21:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757485067633311744

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757453982480413102