RT @curtdoolittle: @anulum FWIW, ‘Empirical’ is a lower standard than ‘Operational’. Something can be empirical but not operational. Someth…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 19:35:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782855776538677754
FWIW, ‘Empirical’ is a lower standard than ‘Operational’. Something can be empirical but not operational. Something operational must be both empirical and operational.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 19:35:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782855751209271478
Reply addressees: @anulum
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782855160496046099
FWIW, ‘Empirical’ is a lower standard than ‘Operational’. Something can be empirical but not operational. Something operational must be both empirical and operational.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 19:35:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782855751150493696
RT @curtdoolittle: @sudovatnik @GearMentation @RokoMijic My work uses Constructive Operationalism, or a constructive logic of operational t…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-18 11:07:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780916136558694678
My work uses Constructive Operationalism, or a constructive logic of operational transformations – which for brevity I shorten to ‘operationalism’ and probably shouldn’t.
Constructive operationalism is a methodology that defines concepts in terms of the specific sequence of…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-18 11:07:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780916101364187365
Reply addressees: @sudovatnik @GearMentation @RokoMijic
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780755763629346839
My work uses Constructive Operationalism, or a constructive logic of operational transformations – which for brevity I shorten to ‘operationalism’ and probably shouldn’t.
Constructive operationalism is a methodology that defines concepts in terms of the specific sequence of constructive operations required to generate or instantiate them from first principles. It emphasizes the algorithmic nature of reality, viewing phenomena as the result of step-by-step processes or computations that transform inputs into outputs or one state into another.
Key principles of constructive operationalism:
Constructive definitions: Concepts are defined in terms of the specific sequence of constructive operations or algorithms that generate or instantiate them from first principles. These operations are grounded in physical reality and can be computationally, chemically, biologically, or cognitively realized.
Algorithmic nature of reality: Reality is viewed as fundamentally algorithmic, with phenomena arising from the execution of specific sequences of constructive operations or state transformations.
Step-by-step construction: Phenomena are explained by specifying the precise sequence of constructive operations that generate them, emphasizing the step-by-step nature of the process and the transformation of inputs into outputs.
Constructed from first principles: The constructive operations are derived from a set of first principles, which serve as the foundational building blocks for generating more complex concepts and phenomena.
Falsifiability: Constructive operational definitions are subject to rigorous falsification tests, with the ability to withstand attempts at refutation serving as a key criterion for their validity and reliability.
Emphasis on generative mechanisms: Explanations focus on the generative mechanisms or constructive processes that give rise to phenomena, providing a causal understanding of how things come to be.
Avoidance of abstract entities: Constructive operationalism avoids invoking abstract or Platonic entities, grounding concepts and explanations in concrete, physically realizable operations and processes.
Constructive operationalism builds upon the insights of intuitionism and operationalism, but distinguishes itself by emphasizing the constructive, generative nature of concepts and phenomena. It goes beyond mere measurement procedures to specify the precise sequence of operations required to construct concepts from first principles.
By grounding definitions in physical processes and subjecting them to falsification tests, constructive operationalism seeks to provide a more rigorous, causally grounded understanding of reality. It aims to reveal the algorithmic nature of phenomena and provide step-by-step explanations of how things come to be.
Constructive operationalism has implications for various fields, including computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and philosophy of science. It provides a framework for understanding the generative mechanisms underlying phenomena and offers a principled approach to defining and explaining concepts in terms of their constructive operations.
Overall, constructive operationalism represents a novel synthesis of intuitionist, operationalist, and falsificationist ideas, offering a powerful framework for understanding reality in terms of the constructive processes that give rise to it.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-18 11:07:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780916101016137728
No. Aristotle(proto-scientific), Plato(literary), and Hume(empirical) and kant( a prior rational) are Philosophers. My work is scientific and operational.
Definitions of Methods:
Mythology:
Stories or narratives, often involving supernatural beings or events, used to explain natural phenomena, cultural practices, or the human condition.
Relies on symbolism, metaphor, and allegory to convey meaning.
Often passed down through oral traditions and can vary across cultures.
Theology:
The study of the nature of God or divine beings, and religious beliefs.
Seeks to understand the relationship between the divine, the world, and human beings.
Often based on sacred texts, revelation, or religious experiences.
Relies on faith, interpretation, and argumentation to support its claims.
Ideology:
A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Often encompasses a set of normative beliefs and values about how society should be organized and function.
Can be influenced by cultural, historical, and political contexts.
Relies on persuasion, rhetoric, and sometimes coercion to propagate its ideas.
Philosophy:
The study of fundamental questions about knowledge, reality, values, reason, and existence.
Seeks to understand the nature of things through logical reasoning, argumentation, and critical examination of assumptions.
Relies on rational inquiry, logical consistency, and conceptual analysis to develop its ideas.
Can be divided into various branches, such as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics.
Empiricism:
The theory that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience.
Emphasizes the role of observation, experimentation, and evidence in the acquisition of knowledge.
Seeks to base conclusions on verifiable data rather than intuition or reasoning alone.
Forms the basis of the scientific method.
Science:
A systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Relies on empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and revision) to develop its theories.
Seeks to produce reliable, valid, and objective knowledge about the natural world.
Emphasizes falsifiability, replicability, and peer review as mechanisms for self-correction and verification.
Operational logic:
The process of making decisions or solving problems based on a structured, step-by-step approach.
Breaks down complex issues into smaller, manageable parts and applies logical reasoning to each step.
Often used in fields such as engineering, computer science, and management.
Key differences:
Mythology and theology rely on narratives, symbolism, and faith, while philosophy, empiricism, science, and operational logic emphasize logical reasoning, evidence, and systematic inquiry.
Ideology is primarily concerned with normative beliefs and values, while the others focus on descriptive or explanatory knowledge.
Empiricism, science, and operational logic prioritize observation, experimentation, and practical application, while mythology, theology, and philosophy often deal with abstract or metaphysical questions.
Science and operational logic aim to produce reliable, predictive, and actionable knowledge, while the others may have different goals, such as providing meaning, guiding behavior, or exploring the nature of reality.
Reply addressees: @sudovatnik @GearMentation @RokoMijic
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-18 11:01:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780914484908871680
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780755763629346839
–“Q: Curt: What are your refutations of the arguments against operationalism?”–@GiwdulBielsira;
Great question. Thanks for asking.
I should write a full article addressing the old issues with the various operational schools and intuitionism et al.
Simple answer, if you understand the debate:
(a) falsification vs justification
(b) testifiability vs meaning
(c) decidability vs undecidability
(c) performative vs ideal truth
(d) constructive vs descriptive
(e) analogy to experience vs fictionalism
(f) first principles vs measurements
(g) relative completeness vs previous era ignorance
(h) explicit incompleteness vs implicit or fictional
(i) near impossibility of lying vs ease of lying
(j) Bridgman/Brouwer vs interpretations
AND;
1) Operationalism/Intuitionism were influential in causing reform in physics, psychology, and linguistics.
2) Utility in proportion to questions of human scale (this requires explanation) and highest in law because it is at human scale. (May require some understanding of my wok on the spectrum of grammars).
3) Current challenge in ai revolution b/c of brute forcing via language, and subsequent awareness of embodiment and recursive falsification as necessary to solve the problem.
SO;
Bridgman was early. Did not and could not complete the project. He could not overcome association with positivism rather than darwinian survival (falsification).
AFAIK I have. And no criticism has yet survived.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-17 14:55:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780611141997076480
PHILOSOPHY ENDED IN THE LAST CENTURY
The problem with philosophical tradition is that it’s predicated on textual and scriptural interpretation. It’s verbal not operational.
But words don’t mean things, people mean things and they satisfy the demand for unambiguity, consistency, correspondence, and the possibility – or they don’t.
So the entire program seems to have ended somewhere between Godel and Kripke: The reliance on set logic rather than operations, on non-contradiction vs operational possibility, on ideals rather than distributions, and ignoring costs, rather than accounting for them.
In other words: Performative truth can only consist of satisfaction of demand for decidability in the context (which, like math and measurement, determines the degree of precision – scale dependence).
Continental Philosophy still survives because the continent is still trying to find a bias to human experience, rather than a scientific description of human experience that we can determine is correct given its complete explanatory power for all experience.
I have no idea why philosphy departments still survive and I doubt they will outlast the next generation.
But people don’t want to pay the cost of learning the sciences, so they stay with literature, which remains somewhat intuitionistic.
It’s hard to teach people to reason (or calculate) entirely. We all want to intuit rather than reason. (avoid the cost).
But the discount on thought results from malinvestment in what is intuitionistically accessible, (cheap to test), and creates high costs over time.
The investment in learning independent of intuition, then using it to explain intuition, produces long-term returns.
So the cheap route, as always, produces its own limits (ceiling).
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-17 00:32:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780393969232363520
There is a difference between a construction by a set of testable operations, and a narrative explaining the consequence.. Just as there is a difference between a formula(measurement) and a theory(search criteria).
I teach the formula (construction), because I want to teach causality, from which deduction is possible. It’s acceptable to teach the narrative, but not if it obscures the causality.
As such the best answer is always the narrative first(explanation), and the causality second (proof).
But otherwise why should someone believe anything I say any more than any other person who does not provide ‘proof of work’ so to speak? 😉
So yes< ia gree but my mimssion since 2022 has beeen reinforced by the three sequences of teams we’ve put together – that I wodk on the formal and others on the informal. I would rather you and others become influential and powerful by teaching the ordinary people the informal version, than ask me to speak to ordinary people with whom I do not share cognitive parity.
– hugs
Reply addressees: @RunicSigil
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-15 20:36:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779971998589870080
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779951250651648429