(FB 1550151623 Timestamp) METAPHYSICS: “FITTING” You see, you start with the supply side error of ‘fitting’ and tell me what the unicorn of metaphysics ‘is’. I start with the demand side and ask what problems are you supposedly trying to solve. The answer is that there exist only the material with potential to know, the experiential, memory of experience, and the products of our actions with the potential to know them. The rest is just fictionalism. Why: because the scale of free association is ‘exciting’ just as hallucinogens are exciting, and for the same reasons So if you mean you want to engage in experiential fictionalism I understand it as a form of entertainment. But that’s all it is. EPISTEMOLOGY Experience > Free association > Hypothesis > Theory > Law. GRAMMARS Deflationary < descriptive < ordinary > narrative > Inflationary > Conflationary Don’t confuse ‘Philosophy’ with ‘literature’. Fantasy literature exists in every field. It’s just that we are honest about literary fiction and dishonest about literary fictional-ISM (occult, pseudoscience, idealism, sophism.)
Theme: Operationalism
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550157314 Timestamp) I don’t know what a metaphysics is if I have constructed one. I know I have deflated and disambiguated LANGUAGE.
- I have enumerated the known grammars used by human beings and the history of their development in each era and why.
- I have articulated the dimensions of those grammars and how they all function.
- I have articulated the constitution of grammars although this is merely a refinement of chomsky.
- I have deflated disambiguated, operationalized, and serialized terms from across the fields, reducing all fields to a common vocabulary absent pretense of knowledge (largely idealism).
And a lot more. Physical science, cognitive science, and if grammars are separate from cognitive science then the grammars, and as far as I know the rest is just ‘lies’. As far as I know philosophy is dead, just as theology is dead. There is only one testifiable method we have today (and have always had) and that is the law, and science is just an application of the law (due diligence and warranty of the truthfulness of one’s statements.) So as far as I know metaphysics as defined in every source I know of (which includes the SEP section 5, stating it does not exist) does not exist as other than an attempt to do as I stated above: fictionalism and lies. In other words, as far as I know P constitutes a logic of constant relations using actions which are all subjectively testable and marginally indifferent as a system of measurement. And language consists entirely of measurement. the question is only the precision of those measurements. Science has demonstrated parsimony.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550282310 Timestamp) —“There’s another way to sum up your approach, Curt Doolittle—Critical Naturalism with an Operational Epistemology requires “metaphysical humility” before the Natural Law. Nature has many undiscovered secrets to be sure, but we use Testimonialism and Scientific investigation rather than metaphysical speculation to gain insight.”–Nick Dahlheim
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550282310 Timestamp) —“There’s another way to sum up your approach, Curt Doolittle—Critical Naturalism with an Operational Epistemology requires “metaphysical humility” before the Natural Law. Nature has many undiscovered secrets to be sure, but we use Testimonialism and Scientific investigation rather than metaphysical speculation to gain insight.”–Nick Dahlheim
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550271669 Timestamp) SO IN CLOSING, RETURNING TO THE CENTRAL POINT: METAPHYSICS = SOPHISM OF PSEUDOSCIENCE Fictions can be used for the purpose of meaning when we cannot model the underlying complexity in mind. Fictions can also be used to deceive. —“Max Tegmark says that consciousness is a ânew form of matterâ Theoretical physics is basically just metaphysics. Everettian multiverse is basically metaphysics Bohmian mechanics is metaphysics because it has unknown variables in the math A-theory of time is metaphysics because it needs new physics such as the ether”— Yes these are metaphysical statements meaning that they are NONSENSE statements, precisely because there is no discipline of metaphysics, only that category of nonsense we call metaphysics. In other words, metaphysics is a name we use for a category of sophism we call pseudoscience. There is neither a discipline (grammar) of pseudoscience nor metaphysics, any more than there is a discipline (grammar) of ghost studies. It is just a name for sophisms of pseudoscience, idealism, and the occult.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550423126 Timestamp) CLOSING IN ON METAPHYSICS AS NON-EXISTENT, or simply cogn sci: demarcation between observable and experienceable. What is metaphysics other than either operational description(existential) or fiction(inexistential)? Why is M not just another scale of physics just as chemistry another scale of atomic states, and atomic states just another scale of particles, and particles just another scale of fundamental forces, and fundamental forces just another scale of information? Sentience and consiousness are just another scale of the physical world in operation. So just as space time is the result of underlying physical reactions, so are experience and consiousness. I am getting closer I think to understanding the confusion of those who claim it exists but I still have to agree with those who say it is handwaving. AFAIK. the human experience is just a continuation of physics, and all operations and experiences explicable in fairly simple terms the underlying mechanics of which only matter in producing aggregates. Metaphysics as far as I know, simply means the ontology(paradigms) of cognitive science at different levels of commensurable operations (scales), just as physics consists of ontologies(paradigms) at different levels of commensurable operations(scales), and I have seen nothing to alter that understanding (even in aristotle) that proposition other than attempts at sophism, pseudoscience, occult, and fraud. And I am absolutely positive that this will persist. My understanding of the reason is that different disciplines use incompatible (incommensurable) paradigms (ontologies) and as such people have to fictionalize relations between them. However, operatios (analogy to experience no matter how difficult to experience) serves as a universally commensurable system of measurement within and across all scales whether physical or cognitive (or linguistic) and as such M is not a discipline but simply cog sci, and all attempts to say otherwise are simply fictionalisms to compensate for incommensurability generating demand for fictions. In other words fictions produce conflation inflation and opportunity for inductive and deductive error from false premises (ontologies, paradigms), and simply serve as sources of ignorance, fraud, and deceit (Popper). Ergo, metaphysics consists simply an extension of physics in the same commensurable language of operations, and there are not multiple metaphysics, just ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit.. And I can’t find any alternative explanation. And I’m not at all unique in this understanding. (Van Frassen, McGinn, Thomassen cited in SEP). And the anti-positivist criticism does not hold against falsificationism/critical naturalism – only asks for commensurability across scales, to maintain coherence and parsimony in defense against error, bias, fiction and deceit. And I am still stuck with the non-anglo desire for empathy with ontologies (experiencing) rather than objectivity(describing). Is this purely cultural or are scandinavian(northern european) peoples genetically different in that we have greater distance (agency) between intuition and cognition. AFAIK every problem I have encountered that we call metaphysics is simply a grammatical error. In fact, I’m not sure philosophy exists of much other than grammatical errors (Malformed calculations). And this is because language is a system of measurement that is only as useful as grammatical demands (tolerances) allow. And that as a system of measurement the only deflationary and inflationary method of speech is operations. While certain philosophers have made this claim and have been attacked, these attacks occur under the fallacy of closure in the system of language itself. Which is a common sophomoric argument in philosophical discourse. The only closure is reality itself in toto.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550423126 Timestamp) CLOSING IN ON METAPHYSICS AS NON-EXISTENT, or simply cogn sci: demarcation between observable and experienceable. What is metaphysics other than either operational description(existential) or fiction(inexistential)? Why is M not just another scale of physics just as chemistry another scale of atomic states, and atomic states just another scale of particles, and particles just another scale of fundamental forces, and fundamental forces just another scale of information? Sentience and consiousness are just another scale of the physical world in operation. So just as space time is the result of underlying physical reactions, so are experience and consiousness. I am getting closer I think to understanding the confusion of those who claim it exists but I still have to agree with those who say it is handwaving. AFAIK. the human experience is just a continuation of physics, and all operations and experiences explicable in fairly simple terms the underlying mechanics of which only matter in producing aggregates. Metaphysics as far as I know, simply means the ontology(paradigms) of cognitive science at different levels of commensurable operations (scales), just as physics consists of ontologies(paradigms) at different levels of commensurable operations(scales), and I have seen nothing to alter that understanding (even in aristotle) that proposition other than attempts at sophism, pseudoscience, occult, and fraud. And I am absolutely positive that this will persist. My understanding of the reason is that different disciplines use incompatible (incommensurable) paradigms (ontologies) and as such people have to fictionalize relations between them. However, operatios (analogy to experience no matter how difficult to experience) serves as a universally commensurable system of measurement within and across all scales whether physical or cognitive (or linguistic) and as such M is not a discipline but simply cog sci, and all attempts to say otherwise are simply fictionalisms to compensate for incommensurability generating demand for fictions. In other words fictions produce conflation inflation and opportunity for inductive and deductive error from false premises (ontologies, paradigms), and simply serve as sources of ignorance, fraud, and deceit (Popper). Ergo, metaphysics consists simply an extension of physics in the same commensurable language of operations, and there are not multiple metaphysics, just ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit.. And I can’t find any alternative explanation. And I’m not at all unique in this understanding. (Van Frassen, McGinn, Thomassen cited in SEP). And the anti-positivist criticism does not hold against falsificationism/critical naturalism – only asks for commensurability across scales, to maintain coherence and parsimony in defense against error, bias, fiction and deceit. And I am still stuck with the non-anglo desire for empathy with ontologies (experiencing) rather than objectivity(describing). Is this purely cultural or are scandinavian(northern european) peoples genetically different in that we have greater distance (agency) between intuition and cognition. AFAIK every problem I have encountered that we call metaphysics is simply a grammatical error. In fact, I’m not sure philosophy exists of much other than grammatical errors (Malformed calculations). And this is because language is a system of measurement that is only as useful as grammatical demands (tolerances) allow. And that as a system of measurement the only deflationary and inflationary method of speech is operations. While certain philosophers have made this claim and have been attacked, these attacks occur under the fallacy of closure in the system of language itself. Which is a common sophomoric argument in philosophical discourse. The only closure is reality itself in toto.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550767219 Timestamp) I write to produce incentives to gain power. Most people don’t operationalize. They skip the hard work of how to obtain power – and fantasize about what they’d do with it.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550767219 Timestamp) I write to produce incentives to gain power. Most people don’t operationalize. They skip the hard work of how to obtain power – and fantasize about what they’d do with it.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550764294 Timestamp) WHY NOT DEBATE THE FAITHFUL? (1 – I don’t debate ‘the faithful’ because reason, empiricism, operationalism, science and law are incommensurable with faith. Moreover, I debate in writing because abrahamic sophism and GSRM is easier to expose, and analytic prose more than the faithful can follow by intuition.) (2- So just as ‘Do not debate with women, they argue by intuition, and proportionality while men argue by testimony and reciprocity’ the faithful rely on the tactic of females: outcasting those who will not conform to myth, vs men outcasting those who will not conform to Truth.) ( 3 -The only reason the faithful have political value is remaining numbers. So rejection of cooperation in exchange for tolerance of circumventing testimony is still possible.Otherwise not.The faithful are historically allies of the enemy, and only joined the ‘right’ after ww2.) (4-This is because the tools of rallying to a false promise, despite the moral hazard of doing so, and using GSRM, Pilpul and Critique (which my work exists to end), are the tool of communicating the abrahamic religions of the old world, and Marxism, Postmodern, Feminism today.) ( 5- So the problem for the faithful is that the tools of persuasion by which they construct their internal contact for faith, is used against them, by a COMPETING new religion of pseudoscience evolved to REPLACE THEM.) ( 6 – Since we have spent 1500 years germanicizing this semitic religion, it is defended by the aristocratic(law) class on tradition and kinship interest alone. However, the faithful will prevent the martial class from defeating this new pseudoscientific set of religions.) (7-And while I have found a method of using the law and testimony to end these competitors our ‘traditional’ faithful,those faithful are clearly unwilling to trade “Faith for the Spiritual, and Law for Reality” in matters of public speech -which is necessary to end competition. ) (8 – As such the only possibility going forward is mass appeal to the material interests of the majority of the population, whom under pressure of subjugation and genocide by the new pseudoscientific cults, will follow their material interest. ) (9 -This means we simply write the law without compromise and let the interests of faith compete with everyone’s material interests; and as such we cannot restore education and state support to the churches, which they desperately need for their survival and political influence. (10- And you .. amatures .. interpreted my experiment (survey) as an attack on the faith, rather than a test of whether it is possible for the faithful to tolerate such a constitution when my objective was to determine if it was possible to return the church to its central role.) (11 – Because my first draft restored the church to central functions of education, and cut public schools, post offices, title registries, banking and credit, and returned those functions to the church. thus ensuring its survival, and the starvation of competing cults.) (12 – But this solution requires that the spectrum of ‘churches’ serve the interests of our people from devoted to disinterested to (as I do) those who prefer our native rather than alien religions of community, ancestors and nature.) (13 – But there is no reasoning with faith. Faith is designed to resist reason. And the calibre of people to discourse with on the ‘alternative right’ is not exactly that which assists in anything other than surveying the range of positions of those lacking agency.) (14 – Hence in any discourse with ‘the faithful’ one is forced to state the truth, that one cannot debate with those who practice the methods of argument evolved precisely to deny means motive and opportunity to reason. And ergo one must resort to ‘calling out’ abrahamic sophism. (15- Which is true, but useless with the faithful who deny reality and the tools by which we warranty our speech is consistent, corespondent and coherent with actionable reality: reason, empiricism, operationalism and science. – Cheers.)