Theme: Measurement

  • RT @curtdoolittle: -“Q: WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE’S AGENDA?”- (Our agenda is to prod

    RT @curtdoolittle: -“Q: WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE’S AGENDA?”-
    (Our agenda is to produce a universally commensurable value-neutral science and…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-24 19:33:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750240354232623251

  • I created this diagram for my Foundation Course, and it is central to understand

    I created this diagram for my Foundation Course, and it is central to understanding how the brain converts the world into something we can act upon. So when people say we live in a simulation, that’s … just not right at all. We see what the camera sees, and we disambiguate it… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1365772304777699333


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-24 17:33:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750210156082639032

  • DISAMBIGUATING THE SPECTRUM OF BELIEF: WE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE SCIENTIFIC METH

    DISAMBIGUATING THE SPECTRUM OF BELIEF: WE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD -NOT FAITH. πŸ˜‰
    (or Faith != Belief != Confidence)
    (The sufficiency of confidence in one’s mental predictions to warranty taking corresponding actions in the face of cost and risk. Or what in The Work (P-Law) we call the provision of decidability sufficient to satisfy demand for infallibility: Or what we define as the truth spectrum.

    OR: “I love you Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh, but Faith != Belief != Confidence”, and Induction conveys no confidence but is necessary for ideation that may then lead to hypotheses. πŸ˜‰ So we don’t have faith in the scientific method we have confidence in it. πŸ˜‰
    RE: https://t.co/3khQyE44np

    Let’s explain:

    REGARDING HUME
    In the sequence Deduction > Induction > Abduction > Guess > Idea via auto-association, each term merely provides us with fewer dimensions of consistency and correspondence for use by our minds (Hippocampal region CA1) to produce suggestions to investigate and determine if these ideas survive falsification.
    In an era of cognitive science we know how the brain performs these functions. In his era, Hume was counseling against an over reliance on reason and especially justification, and in doing so he was demanding that empiricism (due diligence by demonstrated actions) was necessary, rather than induction providing any increase in the likelihood our imaginings are correct. This is effectively what Karl Popper was saying two centuries later, with even greater precision, and concordance with Darwin: Ideas survive they are not proved. Proof is a term from mathematics that refrs to demonstration of internal consistency of a sequence of deductive operations. It is an axiomatic (logical and declarative) not scientific (physical and descriptive) term. In science (the production of testimony) ideas survive or they do not.

    In other words Hume wasn’t claiming that induction was an illusion – he was claiming that it didn’t contribute to predictive likelihood: truth. Yet it did contribute to the process of ideation that could later be subject to sufficient due diligence that it might survive the individual, the market for its application, and the market for competing theories.

    DEFINITION OF “BELIEF”

    1. Cognitive science. In cognitive science, a belief is understood as a mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the likelihood of something being true. (Prediction) Beliefs in this context are central to information processing and guide decision-making and problem-solving. They influence how we perceive and interact with the world and can be shaped by both internal cognition and external stimuli.

    2. Psychology views beliefs as mental constructs that represent an individual’s understanding and interpretation of the world. (Predictions) These constructs are not just passive information stores but active elements in shaping thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Beliefs in psychology are often linked with attitudes and values, influencing how individuals react emotionally and behaviorally to various situations.

    3. Behavioral economics defines beliefs as drivers of economic behavior, significantly influencing decision-making processes. Beliefs in this discipline often pertain to an individual’s expectations about outcomes and risks. They play a crucial role in understanding why people make seemingly irrational economic decisions, diverging from the traditional economic assumption of complete rationality.

    BELIEF AS A STANDARD OF WEIGHT AND MEASURE
    We will use the term Belief (Believe) as the general term for

    THE SPECTRUM OF WILLINGNESS TO ACT GIVEN THE DEMAND FOR INFALLIBILITY

    CAUSALITY
    Instinct refers to innate, biologically driven behaviors that are typically hardwired into an organism. In humans, these can be primal responses like fight-or-flight reactions. Cognitive science views instincts as foundational responses that precede conscious reasoning.

    Intuition refers to the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. It’s a step beyond instinct, involving subconscious processing based on past experiences and learned patterns. Intuition acts as a rapid, often affect-laden, assessment of a situation or information.

    AutoAssociation refers to the automatic linking of related concepts or experiences. It’s a subconscious process where exposure to one stimulus triggers the recall of an associated stimulus. This process is crucial in forming preliminary concepts and ideas.

    IDEA
    Idea refers to the transition from subconscious processes to conscious thought. An idea is a cognitive construct that arises from the synthesis of various associations, intuitions, and information. It’s more structured and deliberate compared to instinct and intuition.

    HYPOTHESIS
    *Belief (Self) Acceptance that something exists or is true, especially without necessary and sufficient evidence to claim it is true. Beliefs can be based on faith, cultural teachings, or personal reasoning, or personal convictions.

    Faith (Intuition and others) in the Supernatural (Imaginable Justification). Involves a strong, unwavering conviction in something without requiring empirical evidence such as religious or spiritual beliefs.

    Trust (others) in the Empirical (Observable Evidence). A reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something. Trust often develops from personal experience or credible information.

    Assurance (market) – A sense of confidence or certainty in a belief or trust, typically based on experience, repeated evidence, or strong rational reasoning.

    THEORY
    Confidence (adversarial market) in the Scientific (Testifiable Due Diligence). A firm belief in something with a strong basis in evidence or experience.

    Conviction (Survival) – A more intense form of confidence, often accompanied by a personal commitment to the belief or idea.

    Certainty (Exhaustion of the Market for Falsification) – A mental state where one has no doubt about the information or belief, often based on a combination of evidence, experience, and reasoning.

    LAW
    Incontrovertibility – This refers to a state of mind where the belief or knowledge is considered undeniable, often due to overwhelming evidence or logical coherence.

    AXIOMATIC LAW
    Axiomatic Certainty – A belief that is accepted as a fundamental truth, often considered self-evident and used as a foundational principle for further reasoning or belief systems.

    COGNITIVE BIASES INFLUENCE THE TRANSITION FROM CONFIDENCE TO AXIOMATIC BELIEFS:
    Cognitive Biases
    Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. They influence how individuals process information and form beliefs, often leading to errors in reasoning.

    1. Confirmation Bias
    Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs. It plays a crucial role in strengthening conviction as individuals tend to disregard information that contradicts their existing beliefs, leading to a solidification of those beliefs.

    2. Availability Heuristic
    This heuristic involves overestimating the importance of information that is readily available. It can lead to a perception of incontrovertibility, as individuals might give undue weight to recent or memorable events when forming beliefs.

    3. Anchoring Bias
    Anchoring occurs when individuals rely too heavily on an initial piece of information (the “anchor”) when making decisions. This bias can lead to the formation of axiomatic beliefs if the initial information is accepted without critical scrutiny and used as a basis for further reasoning.

    4. Dunning-Kruger Effect
    This cognitive bias refers to a situation where individuals with limited knowledge or competence in a domain overestimate their own abilities. In the context of belief formation, this can lead to unwarranted confidence and a lack of recognition of one’s own limitations in understanding.

    5. Cognitive Dissonance
    Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort often leads to an alteration in one of the beliefs or attitudes to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.

    Understanding cognitive biases is essential in comprehending how choice evolves and solidifies. Recognizing these biases can help in critically evaluating one’s own intuitions, thoughts, ideas and in making more informed decisions.

    CONCLUSION
    I could, and probably should combine my work on decidability, with my work on the spectrum of truth, with this work on the spectrum of beliefs (hypotheses) in a quaint little table which I assume would be a public service but I have to finish re-reading a hundred page paper in the two hours, compiling notes and feedback so it will have to wait for another day. πŸ˜‰

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-24 17:21:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750207091938111488

  • Let’s take the simple philosophical trope and expose it to both scientific (test

    Let’s take the simple philosophical trope and expose it to both scientific (testimonial) and legal (incentive) scrutiny.

    If a tree falls in the woods, given the absence of evidence of the silence of trees falling in the woods, and someone claims the falling tree made no sound, we are left with whether trees can in fact make no sound, the individual errs, the individual is engaging in soft deceit by sophistry, or the individual is engaging in hard deceit to justify some subsequent claim by deduction, inference or abduction – most likely conflation or inflation or all of the above.

    in other words the framing implied by question produces a false dichotomy which is, almost universally, how the sophomoric questions are positioned in quote ‘ philosophy ‘, and second only to abuses of grammar by the ambiguity of the copula (is,are, was, were, being, been).

    πŸ˜‰

    Reply addressees: @Gyeff0 @MarlinDBJr


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 18:49:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749866880364380160

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749864732029485336

  • Originalism (weight) and Textualism (measure of that weight), and our Formal Dec

    Originalism (weight) and Textualism (measure of that weight), and our Formal Decidable Natural Law (standard of weights and measures) produces judicial decidability.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 15:45:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749820644664250875

    Reply addressees: @DRolandAnderson @WerrellBradley

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749819772911694252

  • no. time and space are measuremensts. they exist. the full constiution of the qu

    no. time and space are measuremensts. they exist. the full constiution of the quantum background, and its orign is what we don’t know yet.

    Faith requires a supernatural presumption.
    Belief requires a hypothesis.
    Trust requires experience.
    Confidence requires knowledge and…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 14:43:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749805052993376688

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749788635006656721

  • “Would appreciation and depreciation be considered a measure of the success or f

    –“Would appreciation and depreciation be considered a measure of the success or failure of the media of exchange as a form of commons?”–

    No, universality of demand, function as a pricing system, appreciation AND depreciation AND stability in competition with the time horizon of the production cycle (ability of people to plan everything from lunch to launching a major and complex industrial program) determine the value of a medium of exchange because it conveys information which is the purpose of prices – to convey information and as such permit us to engage in imputation.

    What that means, in ordinary language, that the value of a thing is determined by what it will sell for despite the costs to us in it’s production, and that we must then decide how to operate our lives and our work and our businesses by consideration of the costs of goods we can afford to invest in an outcome given the market prices. So we organize mankind by the information included in prices and there is no other mechanism for providing mankind with that precision of information in all aspects of our lives despite the enormous complexity of the world we live in.

    So there is a trope that money is a store of value, but that is only true within the context of production cycles – in other words a lease for 3 months vs a lease for 99 years. or the cost of purchasing groceries for a restaurant this morning vs the price they will sell for at lunch. Vs the price they might sell for in another season where such goods are not so readily available.

    Reply addressees: @Aryayana83 @rosswcalvin @realJohnVictor


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-21 21:54:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749188853708083200

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749168151479423312

  • Thank you. You are correct. I didn’t adjust the Pew data but it’s because I don’

    Thank you. You are correct. I didn’t adjust the Pew data but it’s because I don’t have any other data. πŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-17 22:09:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747743050514743300

    Reply addressees: @antigg860413

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747742552151703957

  • There is nothing unnatural about logic. It is a necessary consequence of biologi

    There is nothing unnatural about logic. It is a necessary consequence of biological systems (nerves and neurons) compressing information by reducing the stimuli available in the natural world to catgories possible for the human body to act upon, by the process of organization by disambiguation into episodes of objects, spaces, and backgrounds, possible sets of action within them, and the valence available to any action.

    Speech and reasoning from speech is just another further compression of information.

    Language consists entirely of measurements. So, like episodes, we can reason “calculate” using those measurements.

    Writing and symbols are a further means of compression and retention – this is why pencil and paper are useful and necessary both for compensating for limits of retention and for compensation for short term memory limits.

    Reply addressees: @DieterKief


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-13 19:31:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746253765873684480

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746248944303108458

  • Technically speaking I am a genius by every known measure. A property of this de

    Technically speaking I am a genius by every known measure. A property of this demonstrated intelligence is never presuming anything, and instead relying on the evidence. That irrelevance aside: So far the Nordic Intel was correct, and the American and British Intel, despite their skepticism have all but confirmed, and the motive is clear. So until we know better, the evidence is what it is. Deal with it.

    Reply addressees: @putzfimel


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-13 14:06:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746171810503106560

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746170247957430447