Junk Science at its best. Either we have three or four emotional ‘reward’ systems, we can describe Pluchik’s eight dimensions (which is a projection of four). Then we have five or six personality factors that bias them (certain, because they correspond to physical reward systems). And if we assume that in general, humans can distinguish at best, between five states, that should yield Pluchik’s diagram, of, at least five levels, with no less than three emotions ‘active’ at the same time. Meanwhile we can experience any combination at once, or sequence of emotions that result in a transitory, temporal, or durable state of emotional experience. That means there are no less than 64 simple emotions, at no less than five degrees of intensity, in some combination … often in many combinations, including ’emotional confusion’. Ergo the number of discernable permutations may be more than two thousand, even if we only possess names for a few hundred of them, and even if we have only four reward(punishment) systems.
Theme: Measurement
-
Junk Science at its best. Either we have three or four emotional ‘reward’ system
Junk Science at its best. Either we have three or four emotional ‘reward’ systems, we can describe Pluchik’s eight dimensions (which is a projection of four). Then we have five or six personality factors that bias them (certain, because they correspond to physical reward systems). And if we assume that in general, humans can distinguish at best, between five states, that should yield Pluchik’s diagram, of, at least five levels, with no less than three emotions ‘active’ at the same time. Meanwhile we can experience any combination at once, or sequence of emotions that result in a transitory, temporal, or durable state of emotional experience. That means there are no less than 64 simple emotions, at no less than five degrees of intensity, in some combination … often in many combinations, including ’emotional confusion’. Ergo the number of discernable permutations may be more than two thousand, even if we only possess names for a few hundred of them, and even if we have only four reward(punishment) systems.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-12 11:24:00 UTC
-
Defining Existence Versus Experience
Existence = Persistence Experience = Non-Persistence 1) We must construct experiences in real time from a combination of brain structure (Vitruvianism), Memory(prior Perception and Association), and Perception(senses), and Association (the measure of which we have no means yet other than IQ to determine). 2) Existence persists independent of experience. 3) Some patterns (categories, relations, values) will always be experienced by human minds. 4) Human minds are indifferent in perception to the degree patterns are indifferently identified. 5) Cooperation is possible because of indifference in perception, indifference in incentives (acquisitions), and indifference in mirroring (sympathy and empathy). -
Defining Existence Versus Experience
Existence = Persistence Experience = Non-Persistence 1) We must construct experiences in real time from a combination of brain structure (Vitruvianism), Memory(prior Perception and Association), and Perception(senses), and Association (the measure of which we have no means yet other than IQ to determine). 2) Existence persists independent of experience. 3) Some patterns (categories, relations, values) will always be experienced by human minds. 4) Human minds are indifferent in perception to the degree patterns are indifferently identified. 5) Cooperation is possible because of indifference in perception, indifference in incentives (acquisitions), and indifference in mirroring (sympathy and empathy). -
DEFINING EXISTENCE VERSUS EXPERIENCE Existence = Persistence Experience = Non-Pe
DEFINING EXISTENCE VERSUS EXPERIENCE
Existence = Persistence
Experience = Non-Persistence
1) We must construct experiences in real time from a combination of brain structure (Vitruvianism), Memory(prior Perception and Association), and Perception(senses), and Association (the measure of which we have no means yet other than IQ to determine).
2) Existence persists independent of experience.
3) Some patterns (categories, relations, values) will always be experienced by human minds.
4) Human minds are indifferent in perception to the degree patterns are indifferently identified.
5) Cooperation is possible because of indifference in perception, indifference in incentives (acquisitions), and indifference in mirroring (sympathy and empathy).
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 13:48:00 UTC
-
The Costs Of Knowledge Transfer
The transfer of knowledge is dependent upon at least ten “supply demand” curves. Such that the contract (exchange) of knowledge is a function of the costs involved in an exchange. In other words, some communication is low cost and some is worthwhile, and some is very costly, and some is prohibitively costly, and some is simply impossible no matter what is done. So transfer of knowledge is one of the most complex human endeavors in no small part because of high causal density with diverse means of increasing costs. |METHOD| Suggest > Communicate(illustrate) > Explain > Teach > Train(Repetition) > Saturate(Immersion) ie: Cost—>+ |LEARNING| Learns through inference (145+) < Learns through Suggestion(135+) < Learns through Illustration (125+) < Learns through Explanation (115+) < Learns through Teaching (105+) < Learns through Training (95+) < Learns through Immersion (85+) < Learning challenged (85-) ie: Cost—>+ |ABILITY| Same Sigma > .5 Sigma > 1 Sigma(helpful) > 1.5 Sigma > 2 Sigma (Difficult)> 2.5 Sigma > 3 Sigma(~Impossible) > 3.5 Sigma > 4 Sigma(~Inconceivable) ie: Cost—>+ |CONTEXT| Enemies(resisting cooperation) > Negotiation (exploring cooperation) > Discovery (cooperation) > Pedagogy (education) > Court/Jury(dispute resolution) ie: Cost (Consequence) —>+ |MODEL| Impulsive(emotive) > Intuitionistic(sympathetic) > Reasonable(verbal)* > Logical-Rational(internally consistent)* > Scientific(Externally consistent) > Ratio-Scientific (Internal and external) > Testimonial (Complete) ie: Cost—>+ |PRIORS| Prior Technical Knowledge < Prior Specific Knowledge* < Prior General Knowledge < Limited General Knowledge ie: Cost—>+ |CONTENT| Identical < Near Identical < Analogistic < Novel < Counter Intuitive < Counter Investment < Counter Status(signal) Investment ie: Cost—>+ |TRUST| Suggestibility(False Positive) > Honest-Reasonable(Exchange Positive) > “Dunning Kruger(False Negative)” ie: Cost—>+ |STRATEGY| Seeking to Understand > Seeking to Disagree > Seeking to Falsify > Seeking to Deny* > Denial. ie: Cost—>+ |HONESTY| Intellectual honesty > Intellectual skepticism > Intellectual Dishonesty*. ie: Cost—>+ This (large) set of causal relations, illustrates the difficulty in the range of communication problems Suggesting > Communicating(illustrate) > Explaining > Teaching > Training(Repetition). And illustrates why it’s simply false to say that if one cannot understand it, one cannot explain it. Instead, it is, that all other causal axis being equal, one should be able to explain a phenomenon to a peer. But as the difference in peerage increases the problem of communication even if all participants are intellectually honest. Please notice the technique used, involves extensive use of deflation (reduction to first causes), use of operational (not ideal) definitions, in series(further deflating), with cost attributions. So that while we may not compute cardinality, we can calculate ordinality by triangulation. This is one of the many methods we use to limit the ability to engage in ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, and deceit. While I am one of the most accessible people working today, I find that the vast majority of the time, the inability to communicate ideas is almost always a function of cost of doing so. And limited knowledge, signal-anchoring, intellectual dishonesty, and dunning kruger effects, are most obvious. Why? Because either you can comprehend and refute an argument, or you can say “I do not comprehend it, and can levy no opinion.” There is a very great difference between the sophism of rationalism and the requirements for empirical science(external correspondence), and the requirements for ratio empirical science (add internal coherence), and the requirement for complete science (add operational, reasonable-choice, moral-reciprocal, scope completeness and limits). There is a reason why Rationalism is used in hermeneutic interpretation LEGISLATION and SCRIPTURE and why Ratio-empiricism is used in physical science, and why Testimony (although often poorly unarticulated in the study of law) requires operational testimony, test of the rational man, test of reciprocity, and test of full accounting and limits. Not the least of which is that words carry little decidability but property carries with it conflict and decidability. Why? Because the courts determine the facts (testimony and truthfulness), and then apply tests of reasonableness, reciprocity, externality, and then test them against the legislation – which is not meant to be, or practiced, as true or just, but simply the ‘rules’ of decidability in matters of conflict. And from this we can learn a great deal about the difference between argument in court where our frauds and deceptions will provide us with punishment, and the jury decides whether we err or deceive, and debate, where the jury decides whether we err or deceive, and petty argument where we seek to learn(test), or fraud(win), or educate(help). There are very few intellectually honest people in the world. There are fewer that can learn and make use of multi-dimensional (causally dense) methods of thought. And fewer who are willing to pay the high cost of attempting to articulate and teach those causally dense methods of thought that are counter to signal, norm, intuition and discipline. But the influence of reason(falsification), of natural law(reciprocity), of mathematics (the science of measurement), of science(empiricism-correspondence), and (hopefully, in the near future, Testimonialism) has been profound – and responsible for the great leaps in human mastery of the self, of nature, and of the universe. |TRUTH| {Generation 1: Heroism > Oath ‘Reporting’ > Property} > {Generation 2: Falsification > Natural Law > Mathematics} > {Generation 3: The Abrahamic Dark Age of Conflation} > {Generation 4: Empiricism > Economics > Testimonialism} Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
THE COSTS OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER The transfer of knowledge is dependent upon at l
THE COSTS OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
The transfer of knowledge is dependent upon at least ten “supply demand” curves. Such that the contract (exchange) of knowledge is a function of the costs involved in an exchange. In other words, some communication is low cost and some is worthwhile, and some is very costly, and some is prohibitively costly, and some is simply impossible no matter what is done. So transfer of knowledge is one of the most complex human endeavors in no small part because of high causal density with diverse means of increasing costs.
|METHOD| Suggest > Communicate(illustrate) > Explain > Teach > Train(Repetition) > Saturate(Immersion)
ie: Cost—>+
|LEARNING| Learns through inference (145+) < Learns through Suggestion(135+) < Learns through Illustration (125+) < Learns through Explanation (115+) < Learns through Teaching (105+) < Learns through Training (95+) < Learns through Immersion (85+) < Learning challenged (85-)
ie: Cost—>+
|ABILITY| Same Sigma > .5 Sigma > 1 Sigma(helpful) > 1.5 Sigma > 2 Sigma (Difficult)> 2.5 Sigma > 3 Sigma(~Impossible) > 3.5 Sigma > 4 Sigma(~Inconceivable)
ie: Cost—>+
|CONTEXT| Enemies(resisting cooperation) > Negotiation (exploring cooperation) > Discovery (cooperation) > Pedagogy (education) > Court/Jury(dispute resolution)
ie: Cost (Consequence) —>+
|MODEL| Impulsive(emotive) > Intuitionistic(sympathetic) > Reasonable(verbal)* > Logical-Rational(internally consistent)* > Scientific(Externally consistent) > Ratio-Scientific (Internal and external) > Testimonial (Complete)
ie: Cost—>+
|PRIORS| Prior Technical Knowledge < Prior Specific Knowledge* < Prior General Knowledge < Limited General Knowledge
ie: Cost—>+
|CONTENT| Identical < Near Identical < Analogistic < Novel < Counter Intuitive < Counter Investment < Counter Status(signal) Investment
ie: Cost—>+
|TRUST| Suggestibility(False Positive) > Honest-Reasonable(Exchange Positive) > “Dunning Kruger(False Negative)”
ie: Cost—>+
|STRATEGY| Seeking to Understand > Seeking to Disagree > Seeking to Falsify > Seeking to Deny* > Denial.
ie: Cost—>+
|HONESTY| Intellectual honesty > Intellectual skepticism > Intellectual Dishonesty*.
ie: Cost—>+
This (large) set of causal relations, illustrates the difficulty in the range of communication problems Suggesting > Communicating(illustrate) > Explaining > Teaching > Training(Repetition). And illustrates why it’s simply false to say that if one cannot understand it, one cannot explain it. Instead, it is, that all other causal axis being equal, one should be able to explain a phenomenon to a peer. But as the difference in peerage increases the problem of communication even if all participants are intellectually honest.
Please notice the technique used, involves extensive use of deflation (reduction to first causes), use of operational (not ideal) definitions, in series(further deflating), with cost attributions. So that while we may not compute cardinality, we can calculate ordinality by triangulation. This is one of the many methods we use to limit the ability to engage in ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, and deceit.
While I am one of the most accessible people working today, I find that the vast majority of the time, the inability to communicate ideas is almost always a function of cost of doing so. And limited knowledge, signal-anchoring, intellectual dishonesty, and dunning kruger effects, are most obvious. Why? Because either you can comprehend and refute an argument, or you can say “I do not comprehend it, and can levy no opinion.”
There is a very great difference between the sophism of rationalism and the requirements for empirical science(external correspondence), and the requirements for ratio empirical science (add internal coherence), and the requirement for complete science (add operational, reasonable-choice, moral-reciprocal, scope completeness and limits).
There is a reason why Rationalism is used in hermeneutic interpretation LEGISLATION and SCRIPTURE and why Ratio-empiricism is used in physical science, and why Testimony (although often poorly unarticulated in the study of law) requires operational testimony, test of the rational man, test of reciprocity, and test of full accounting and limits. Not the least of which is that words carry little decidability but property carries with it conflict and decidability.
Why? Because the courts determine the facts (testimony and truthfulness), and then apply tests of reasonableness, reciprocity, externality, and then test them against the legislation – which is not meant to be, or practiced, as true or just, but simply the ‘rules’ of decidability in matters of conflict.
And from this we can learn a great deal about the difference between argument in court where our frauds and deceptions will provide us with punishment, and the jury decides whether we err or deceive, and debate, where the jury decides whether we err or deceive, and petty argument where we seek to learn(test), or fraud(win), or educate(help).
There are very few intellectually honest people in the world. There are fewer that can learn and make use of multi-dimensional (causally dense) methods of thought. And fewer who are willing to pay the high cost of attempting to articulate and teach those causally dense methods of thought that are counter to signal, norm, intuition and discipline.
But the influence of reason(falsification), of natural law(reciprocity), of mathematics (the science of measurement), of science(empiricism-correspondence), and (hopefully, in the near future, Testimonialism) has been profound – and responsible for the great leaps in human mastery of the self, of nature, and of the universe.
|TRUTH| {Generation 1: Heroism > Oath ‘Reporting’ > Property} > {Generation 2: Falsification > Natural Law > Mathematics} > {Generation 3: The Abrahamic Dark Age of Conflation} > {Generation 4: Empiricism > Economics > Testimonialism}
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 10:38:00 UTC
-
Btw: Teaching Moment
Logic versus Science. There are three rules of the logic of internal consistency: 1) Identity, 2) Non Contradiction, and 3) Excluded Middle. Unfortunately, these rules refer to binary truth (identity) wherein all statements are true or false. But that presumption is false. All statements are true, false, or undecidable (null, meaningless, or unknown). But since undecidable statements cannot be used as premises in syllogism or deduction, they must be *treated* as false. So in deductive logic we treat undecidable statements as false, even if they are merely unknown. We use internally consistent, deductive truth in the discipline (science) of measurement that we call mathematics, We use internally consistent deductive truth in the interpretation of Justificationary language: Law and Scripture (logic). We refer to collections of these proofs of internal consistency as axiomatic systems. They refer to ideals. But in science, all operational statements are either false, surviving(not false: theoretical), or unknown(untested, or untestable). We refer to collections of these statements as theoretic systems (models not proofs), They refer to reality, not ideals. So, whereas you can compose the liar’s paradox in ideal axiomatic language, you cannot do so in scientific language since a person would only compose the liar’s paradox as an accident, a trick or deception, and therefore we fault the speaker not the speech. -
Btw: Teaching Moment
Logic versus Science. There are three rules of the logic of internal consistency: 1) Identity, 2) Non Contradiction, and 3) Excluded Middle. Unfortunately, these rules refer to binary truth (identity) wherein all statements are true or false. But that presumption is false. All statements are true, false, or undecidable (null, meaningless, or unknown). But since undecidable statements cannot be used as premises in syllogism or deduction, they must be *treated* as false. So in deductive logic we treat undecidable statements as false, even if they are merely unknown. We use internally consistent, deductive truth in the discipline (science) of measurement that we call mathematics, We use internally consistent deductive truth in the interpretation of Justificationary language: Law and Scripture (logic). We refer to collections of these proofs of internal consistency as axiomatic systems. They refer to ideals. But in science, all operational statements are either false, surviving(not false: theoretical), or unknown(untested, or untestable). We refer to collections of these statements as theoretic systems (models not proofs), They refer to reality, not ideals. So, whereas you can compose the liar’s paradox in ideal axiomatic language, you cannot do so in scientific language since a person would only compose the liar’s paradox as an accident, a trick or deception, and therefore we fault the speaker not the speech. -
BTW: TEACHING MOMENT Logic versus Science. There are three rules of the logic of
BTW: TEACHING MOMENT
Logic versus Science.
There are three rules of the logic of internal consistency:
1) Identity, 2) Non Contradiction, and 3) Excluded Middle.
Unfortunately, these rules refer to binary truth (identity) wherein all statements are true or false. But that presumption is false. All statements are true, false, or undecidable (null, meaningless, or unknown). But since undecidable statements cannot be used as premises in syllogism or deduction, they must be *treated* as false.
So in deductive logic we treat undecidable statements as false, even if they are merely unknown.
We use internally consistent, deductive truth in the discipline (science) of measurement that we call mathematics,
We use internally consistent deductive truth in the interpretation of Justificationary language: Law and Scripture (logic). We refer to collections of these proofs of internal consistency as axiomatic systems. They refer to ideals.
But in science, all operational statements are either false, surviving(not false: theoretical), or unknown(untested, or untestable). We refer to collections of these statements as theoretic systems (models not proofs), They refer to reality, not ideals.
So, whereas you can compose the liar’s paradox in ideal axiomatic language, you cannot do so in scientific language since a person would only compose the liar’s paradox as an accident, a trick or deception, and therefore we fault the speaker not the speech.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-08 10:55:00 UTC