Theme: Operationalism

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553009664 Timestamp) INSIGHT by Brandon Hayes —“Curt, I am in full agreement with your statement: (quote) “..there are no premises we can claim are true only meaningful, for the purpose of commercial, financial economic, legal, and military discourse.” Then on the basis of positivist epistemology, which you acknowledge has no access to ontological truth, you proceed to contradict yourself by making a whole set of ontological truth claims such as “the universe IS hostile” and “humans are unimportant.” These are your subjective philosophical value judgements. They are not inescapable deductions implied in the premises of science. Thus your reply is a performative simply confirming and illustrating the validity of everything I wrote.”—Prem Prayojan I appreciate your insights in these matters; however, I think you have taken Ps position and pushed it a step further than needed (than possible; than we do). –“The universe IS hostile” and “humans are unimportant.”– Saying these things are true isn’t to posit them as ultimate truth claims [these are half truths] and all truth (half or not) must be coped with. [Curt correct me if I’m off base] –CURTD– You’re correct in principle, in that 1) Truth Proper (Ideal Truth), is unattainable for other than the reductio and therefore irrelevant. 2) that the best we can do is achieve truthfulness (testimonial truth), and that no matter where we are in a spectrum of achieving sufficient completeness that we might SATISFY the DEMAND for INFALLIBILITY (what we mean when we say something ‘is true’), we must cope with the supply of infallibility (truth) that we have before us. Given TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. ANALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). IDEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) TRUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. INTUITION: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553009066 Timestamp) BETTER THAN I COULD HAVE SAID IT by Brandon Hayes I’m under the impression and understand the beauty of P to be this: by removing personal subjectivity (asymmetric preference) from human interaction [by subjecting it to P law; replacing it with calculation] Emotions and meaning are properly solved for (via the best plausible outcome). This is because P solves for the optimal interaction (cooperation; reciprocity). P says (calculates, proves) what’s false (wrong); thus to be avoided OR bad (immoral unethical) to be punished (or left undone). By, removing, punishing and limiting the bad. ALL possibilities to GOOD are opened [and taken more often as we close doors to the “bad”]. It leaves preference and decisions about pursuits to HUMANS (hence P can’t be done by AI and is resistant to take-over). Only humans can make the calculations P suggests. People seem to think P must say more than it does about the way things are or ought to be; but the brilliance of P is its parsimony. — CURTD — Correct. And this is the problem i face, the law faces, and science faces. We say only that which is false. It is up to those others to decide, from that options remain, what is GOOD and not FALSE. So for those with great psychological, emotional, intellectual, and material, agency for whom adaptation to any given ‘good’ is relatively easy does little for the vast majority for whom movement with a herd of similar interests is their only available means of survival. If I must PROPOSE a religious structure (I will do so) as a rough outline for others to create upon, then I will. But even doing that is merely ADVICE. That is different from math (measurement) science (falsification), and law (truth). The narrative will and must forever be a means of unifying behind an hypothesis of the good.

  • (FB 1553520607 Timestamp) Now, if laws were constructed in this form and in oper

    (FB 1553520607 Timestamp) Now, if laws were constructed in this form and in operational language, (including the tests of reciprocity and limits as well) ….

  • (FB 1553520607 Timestamp) Now, if laws were constructed in this form and in oper

    (FB 1553520607 Timestamp) Now, if laws were constructed in this form and in operational language, (including the tests of reciprocity and limits as well) ….

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/55505696_10157071686842264_272509154

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/55505696_10157071686842264_2725091547413479424_o_10157071686837264.jpg Now, if laws were constructed in this form and in operational language, (including the tests of reciprocity and limits as well) ….Steve PenderAlgorithmic law for eventual AI law enforcementMar 25, 2019, 9:57 AMJWarren PrescottAfter 30 years of writing, reading and using engineering specifications, I appreciate precise language. Engineering specs have to transfer complex information that must be understood by not just other engineers, but salesmen, expeditors, purchasing, inspectors and the craft. We have to take upper-tier specifications and create procedures, purchase orders and numerous other documents. There is a clear hierarchy and revisions to specifications supersede the previous revisions.

    Unfortunately, the current method used in writing the law is inherently irrational and confusing. It is a hodgepodge of overlapping statutory laws, regulations, procedures, ordinances that is all but impossible to unravel. It is as if lawyers created for themselves a system that excluded even the educated from logical discourse.

    For example, I can create a living trust in one state and it not be valid in another – because HOW it was written – by lawyers… But the same lawyers can (for a fee) reword the trust so it has the “right” words for their state. One would think that if the lawyers could interpret the original trust, a judge could.Mar 25, 2019, 10:26 AMAaron BradleyWhat a breath of fresh air…Mar 25, 2019, 5:43 PMNow, if laws were constructed in this form and in operational language, (including the tests of reciprocity and limits as well) ….


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-25 09:30:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53611052_10157047930037264_829177878

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53611052_10157047930037264_8291778782650433536_o_10157047930032264.jpg Bryan Nova BreyOperational Tests set to God Mode. 😲Mar 14, 2019, 12:49 PMCurt Doolittlescary once you understand the whole table of speech it … it scary…..Mar 14, 2019, 12:54 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-14 10:51:00 UTC

  • most of us eventually claim we can normalize to ones and zeroes. but not enough

    most of us eventually claim we can normalize to ones and zeroes. but not enough of us realize that we can normalize to human faculties.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-12 21:23:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1105579989691330561

  • TRAINING in operational prose, logic, and grammar would help all people communic

    TRAINING in operational prose, logic, and grammar would help all people communicate just like the same operational prose, logic, and grammar help the scientific community communicate – although P-law, in addition covers not just the physical sciences but the human (psychology, sociology, ethics, law, politics, group strategy, and literature)

    But just as one cannot hope to communicate in mathematics or physics or chemistry or law without training in those disciplines, one cannot hope to communicate in the Human Sciences, and in particular ‘morality’ without training in the language and method of doing so.

    Ergo, One can train people in the logic of cooperation but one cannot discourse with people unless they are so trained. the reason being that one can never divorce himself from cognitive bias, and accumulated disinformation without that training any more than one can grasp physics without training – Sciences exist because such things are beyond the limits of our personal comprehension without systems of measurement to eliminate our biases and disinformation.

    So, yes, if you learn the propertarian method you can speak in measurements. Those measurements are not all that complicated really. But it appears to take about six months to two years to learn them today. And, I assume we can cut that to less time with the courses.

    cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-09 12:24:00 UTC

  • NOPE NOPE —“Curt: What would (….) in a propertarian society?”— PROP IS A M

    NOPE NOPE

    —“Curt: What would (….) in a propertarian society?”—

    PROP IS A METHOD.

    Propertarianism is a methodology, consisting of a set of methodologies, a set of definitions, and a set of arguments, that produce a commensurable language, complete the scientific method, and embody that scientific method into rule of law.

    What you do with that law is wide open – it just has to be transparent, and it will prohibit all sorts of lying in public about whatever order you have.

    P-law is extremely facist out of the box – it is extremely nationalistic, and extremely intolerant, and especially intolerant of our ancient enemy’s means of deceit. And It is very hard to engage in malfeasance under P-Law since it is simply too profitable for individuals to report criminals for fun and profit. It is a ruthless system of government for enemies of the productive people. It has no mercy for enemies foreign or domestic.

    FOR MY PEOPLE

    My focus has been on correcting the United states first, and the other european states second.

    I recommend, for my people, and my people alone, because my people alone appear capable of it:

    0 – An independent judiciary of the natural law

    1 – A militia of all able bodied men in the regimental model, attached to a ‘church’/’school’. A standing army of professional warriors, and citizen employees of the military who are inducted in emergencies, since an increasing scope of military work is technical and administrative.

    2 – A Hereditary Monarchy with a professional cabinet

    3 – Virtual Houses of Governors, Industry, Business, Labor, and Family(homeowners). Where house members are selected randomly from the population, to provide assent or dissent to proposals by the monarchy in the raising and use of taxes. And where all houses must ‘pass’ (ascend).

    4 – A near prohibition on bureaucracy; all government service “at the pleasure of the monarchy”; and a prohibition on pensions for public servants.

    5 – My understanding is that this would provide all the benefits of fascism without the need for a dictator-character and the attendant risk. Even then, there is no reason a monarch cannot appoint such a person as did the romans, in times of crisis or need.

    FLIPPED INCENTIVES

    This produces a very different set of incentives since everyone is always and everywhere accountable for everything.

    MIDDLE CLASS IS HARD TO BEAT

    Monarchies appear to run better governments until they cannot. They cannot when the commercial complexity reaches the point of choosing limited investments from a host of possible investments. In this case the middle class appears to do well UNTIL they start socializing losses and privatizing the commons or engaging in arbitrage against the long term interests of the people.

    FEDERATION

    Any number of these monarchies can be federated under a supreme court of the natural law, just as the church federated the monarchies under church ‘license’ – the principle value of the court and the church being the ‘delegitimization’ of a ruler or a government, there by sanctioning the people and neighbors to replace that ruler, in the european tradition. This would, I expect, be rare, since royal families are extremely intolerant of family members who risk their status – and often make them ‘disappear’.

    My preference (Fantasy) would be to restore the anglo empire, and the germanic (Holy roman) empire, and to complete the intermarium and end the conflict of the 20th century brought about by ((())) the enemies of our people under the banner of world communism and the destruction of our peoples.

    FOR OTHER PEOPLES

    For other peoples I recommend a flexible system of government not terribly different from the Roman and English:

    – Fascism (Generalship) for time of war or conflict.

    – Monarchies with professional cabinets as long as possible

    – Adding Houses of government as via negativa juries when too large. These juries must only approve/deny raising of funds by the monarchy (cabinet).

    – If for some reason some semblance of democracy is necessary (it isn’t, but it may be impossible to avoid it for pragmatic reasons) I recommend virtual houses for each of the classes and genders, where classes trade in a market rather than pass legislation by majority rule. Where resources are either equally or proportionally distributed. Then posting proposals for x months, then using a lottery (Greece) rather than politicians to select the juries (houses), then allowing the juries to conduct business (trade)

    In other words, there is no ‘propertarian society’ per se other than all those societies run under rule of law by natural law.

    So….

    You can ask me questions of natural law – ‘what would the law say about ????’

    You can ask me about different political orders: “what order, or what would you recommend for ????”

    You can ask me what constitution I’d recommend for america or germany, or england or poland etc. “what would you recommend for????”

    You can ask me what I’ve put in the working constitution.

    As long as they are under natural law they are ‘propertarian’.

    If they are not then they are not.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-07 21:06:00 UTC

  • NAMES FOR SCHOOLS OF ECONOMICS

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/09/15/how-about-operational-true-names-for-schools-of-economics/TRUE NAMES FOR SCHOOLS OF ECONOMICS

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/09/15/how-about-operational-true-names-for-schools-of-economics/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-05 08:59:00 UTC