Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • I think I am going to do a quick video or audio or live chat tomorrow on Operati

    I think I am going to do a quick video or audio or live chat tomorrow on Operational Language. Maybe 5-10 minutes. Because I have had all of this in my head, and now that I’m trying to produce a course on it, I understand what *everyone* (not just you who follow me) have been getting ‘wrong’ with the operational revolution, and why it stalled. Its not all that complicated. But you know how anything expressible in mathematics can be expressed in ordinary language and vise-versa? But we use the symbols for purposes of brevity? Well the same is true in language. We can express in ordinary abbreviated language or in fully expanded language. And we can infer (variables) in ordinary and mathematical langauge. But by fully expanding ordinary language we can identify the variables ( inferences ). etc.

    So it’s not like I”m asking people to write in fully operational grammar. It’s that by practicing fully operational grammar you eventually won’t need to practice it any longer.

    It’s more that we need to be able to fully expand a simple sentence into operational grammar. And if we can’t do so then it can’t be ‘true’.

    So the reason to understand it is to test yourself, test others, and to write and test law. It’s not so that we actually use the stuff.

    Sort of like diagramming sentences.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-07 20:35:00 UTC

  • THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRAMMAR AND MEANING The ball is red. (“God language”) I p

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRAMMAR AND MEANING

    The ball is red. (“God language”)

    I prefer red. (opinion)

    I see a red ball. (statement)

    I promise I see a red ball. (promise)

    I sear that I see a red ball, and if you observe the same object you will agree that you also see a red ball. ( testimony)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-07 19:26:00 UTC

  • ANALYTIC VS CONTINENTAL AND ABRAHAMIC IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT Analytic philosophy

    ANALYTIC VS CONTINENTAL AND ABRAHAMIC IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

    Analytic philosophy struggles to speak (testify) in measurements each of which is testable. An attempt to limit error and deceit. Because analytic philosophy rose out of the anglo system (empirical) which arose out of the anglo legal (bacon).

    The consequence is that by deflation (opposite of the continental method) truth can be tested by the ‘market’ for those with a wide set of norms, traditions, and values.

    The advantage (and purpose) of the continental (and abrahamic) models, is to conflate rather than deflate measurements with values such that one must submit to sympathy (consent to the values) in order to test the measure (if possible).

    In other words, the purpose of the analytic model is deflationary to prevent the very suggestion and monopoly of values that continental tradition seeks to enforce, and to prevent the suggestion and monopoly of facts and values that religions seek to enforce.

    In other words, the analytic tradition seeks to insulate us from the sympathetic coercion of the continental program of philosophy, and the authoritarian deception of the abrahamic program of philosophy.

    The problem then is the same as faced by the ancients. One must retain correspondence and coherence between one’s method of pedagogy(group evolutionary strategy) and method of law (dispute resolution). The roman’s mistake was in tolerating the introduction of deception into the empire in the jewish, christian, and islamic forms. As well as tolerating the retention of Greek idealism. They had solved the problem of roman law, stoic ritual and virtue, and public religion and festival.

    The germans have conflated religion and philosophy while preserving the deflation of law – although not as strongly as the common law prior to Napoleon.

    And I have learned a great deal from the difference between the anglo method and the german and the jewish.

    The more deflation the more innovation and adaptation and trust. The problem is, one must increase the prosecution of recidivism in one’s religion and education along with every increase in deflation of philosophy and law.

    This explains most of history really as a battle between underclass deceit and conflation against the aristocracy and aristocratic truth and deflation against the underclass.

    Or more simply, aristocratic eugenics vs underclass dysgenics.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 19:19:00 UTC

  • ON “THOUGHT” by Propertarian Frank Thought is a tricky name to use because it’s

    ON “THOUGHT”

    by Propertarian Frank

    Thought is a tricky name to use because it’s too entangled with Platonic assumptions. Tentatively I operationalize it as ordered stimulation (activation of those neural circuitries that normally get stimulated by specific external stimulants, or that are on the activation path of externally observable behavior (thinking a clause is the activation of the circuitry that is antecedent on the path to (1) vocalizing of (2) visualizing associations of, (3) associational perception of , or (4) a combination of other preset modes of action involving the clause in question)). I don’t know if this is correspondent with our current understanding of cognitive science, but I’m confident the end result will look like a variant of this.

    So some of the things (I think) you would call ‘thought’, I classify as action. For instance mentally calculating 567*93 is an action. By vocalizing the correct result, you demonstrate that you can compute it (carry out the operations constituting the action). The idealization of language is due to an artificial separation of mental transformations from demonstrated action. The latter is just a special case of the former.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 19:01:00 UTC

  • METAPHYSICS, SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY ? I my view the purpose of science is to constr

    METAPHYSICS, SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY ?

    I my view the purpose of science is to construct measurements where we provide a means of sensing the otherwise unsensable such that we render it commensurable and judgeable. So Propertarianism is a method of measurement, where man is used as the unit of measure. In other words, perfect commensurably provided by the limits of human action within each dimension of actionable reality.

    Now given that we are marginally indifferent in our senses, we can then testify to one another in each of those dimensions (testimonially) and test one another’s statements for (as Joel says ) both correspondence and coherence. So it’s just very hard to construct a falsehood ‘testimonially’ that we cannot sense. Since everything is reduced to that which we can commensurably (marginally indifferently) sense.

    So I view science as the art of constructing measurements in logical and physical forms. I view philosophy as the means of decidability within a domain. I view truth as the means of decidability across domains, or independent of domain.

    So whether you want to take those three things and represent them as a triangle, or a hierarchy, I guess I have taken the position that there is a hierarchy, and it is Time > Life > Necessity of Action > Truth > Philosophy > Science. But I might be wrong about that relationship. I am almost certain I am wrong. But I can think about it a bit.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 18:58:00 UTC

  • THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE. —“Curt Doolittle’s ‘Natural Law of Reciprocity’ operati

    THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE.

    —“Curt Doolittle’s ‘Natural Law of Reciprocity’ operationalizes Kant’s categorical imperative as a functional measurement of interpersonal relations.”— Joel Davis

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 08:42:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND TESTIMONIALISM: OPERATIONALIZING KANT (extremely important)

    PROPERTARIANISM AND TESTIMONIALISM: OPERATIONALIZING KANT

    (extremely important)

    by Joel Davis

    Kant’s epistemology can be broken down as a solution to the loss of a coherently functional conceptualization of our experience necessitated by adopting the extreme skepticism which emerges from Hume’s pure empiricism.

    Hume got so deep into empiricism that he rendered causality itself unknowable (as we merely sense variance over time, and impose the unfalsifiable concept of causal relations onto variance), Kant recognized the problem raised by Hume as pertaining to more than merely causality, but in fact to the concept of relative coherence itself.. On what basis can we empirically verify that the “thing-in-itself” is coherent? Kant then correctly realized that comprehensible experience can only emerge from conceptual coherence, thus necessitating the imposition of concepts like causality, the laws of logic and mathematics, and relative temporality and spatiality.

    Therefore, to Kant, we can not verify whether reality (the ‘thing-in-itself’) is coherent as we can’t perceive causal, logical, mathematical, temporal or spatial incoherence, thus we would impose coherence onto it to experience it anyway. However, this does not devalue rationality or empiricism, it merely articulates the function of experience – the categorization of perceived variance functions relative to conceptual/ideal definition (what Curt Doolittle describes as categorical consistency and scope consistency if done commensurably).

    Kant of course took hundreds of pages to say what I just said in a couple paragraphs, why? Because I think operationally.

    The best concept of ‘the truth’ we can generate emerges from operationalizing conceptual coherence by discovering functionally relative correspondence via the commensurable definition of experiential variance and convergence.

    That commensurablity emerges from measuring the temporal variance of sensory phenomena relative to abstract limits (what Curt Doolittle calls existential consistency).

    I also hold that just as Curt Doolittle’s epistemology operationalizes Kant’s epistemology as a functional measurement of thinking and speaking in maximum coherence (Testimonialism), Curt Doolittle’s ‘Natural Law of Reciprocity’ operationalizes Kant’s categorical imperative as a functional measurement of interpersonal relations. But, that piece of writing that will have to wait for when I have the time.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 07:26:00 UTC

  • by Propertarian Frank (1) Language and human action are inseparable, i.e. one ca

    by Propertarian Frank

    (1) Language and human action are inseparable, i.e. one cannot understand language separately from action (this reveals most of philosophy to be contentless)

    (2) Names make sense exactly to the extent and via the structure they refer to actions (spectrum of measurements determine the scope and limits of names)

    (3) Commensurability is the best language can do, because:

    (i) To discern is an ACT of measurement

    (ii) Indiscernible things are informationally null

    (iii) Ergo one can only fully convey (without informational loss) names discernible to one’s interlocutor

    (iv) Ergo we can only talk in dimensions of commensurability (measurements both parties can enACT)

    Apply (i-iv) reflexively (talking to oneself): informational content in conceptualization is determined by the set of novel measurements (and ways thereof: meta-measurements or measurement-measurements, recursively) introduced.

    In other words, commensurability exhausts the reach of language.

    In other words, magic don’t real.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 06:23:00 UTC

  • A LOT OF TRUTH SCIENTIFIC METHOD (DUE DILIGENCE FOR TRUTH) Truth as used in scie

    A LOT OF TRUTH

    SCIENTIFIC METHOD (DUE DILIGENCE FOR TRUTH)

    Truth as used in science : the study of the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) by the construction of physical and logical methods of measurement that reduce the imperceptible and incomparable and undecidable to that which is perceivable, comparable, and decidable given the limits of human ability.

    D]EFINITIONS OF TRUTH.

    1 – [T]RUTH: 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.

    2 – [T]RUTHFULNESS: 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.

    3 – [H]ONESTY: 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.

    4 – [D]emonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.

    5 – [P]reference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).

    6 – [P]osition: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.

    7 – [O]pinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.

    8 – [I]ntuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).

    THE DEMAND FOR TRUTH

    1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    CATEGORIES OF FALSEHOOD

    1 – ignorance

    2 – error

    3 – bias

    4 – wishful thinking

    5 – suggestion

    6 – obscurantism

    7 – fictionalism (PseudoMythology/Theology, Pseudorealism/Idealism, Pseudorationalism, Pseudoscience)

    8 – deceit.

    THE SPECTRUM OF TRUE TO FALSE

    +5 – The Analytically True (Tautological). Logical

    +4 – Apodictically True (non contradictory) Rational

    +3 – The (ideally) True (most parsimonious possible in human language) Rational and Scientific

    +2 – The truthful (that which we have performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, by the tests of consistency in the categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational-incentive, reciprocal-moral, and fully accounted.)

    +1 – The truth candidate (that which we have not yet found false but have not yet fully exposed to due diligence)

    0 – The undecidable (that which we can say is neither true nor false nor possible)

    -1 – The False candidate ( which which is possible in the process of failing due diligence)

    -2 – The Falsified (that which has failed due diligence and cannot be otherwise than false.)

    -3 – The (ideally) False (the most parsimonious possible in human language)

    -4 – The Analytically False (Self Contradictory)

    DIMENSIONS OF ACTIONABLE REALITY

    1 – categorical (identity)

    2 – logical (internal consistency)

    3 – empirical ( correspondence. external consistency.)

    4 – operational (existential, temporal, experiential consistency )

    5 – rational (rational choice given incentives at the time)

    6 – moral (fully reciprocal: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition upon others by externality.)

    7 – scope (fully accounted – without cherry picking)

    DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS

    1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent?

    2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency?

    3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence.

    4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such?

    5) is it a rational choice by an actor at the moment in time with the information at his disposal?

    6) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?)

    7) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-29 14:35:00 UTC

  • CAN WE MEASURE TRUTHFULNESS? (reposted to the main page for others to view) Degr

    CAN WE MEASURE TRUTHFULNESS?

    (reposted to the main page for others to view)

    Degrees of Precision In Truthfulness

    4 – Imagined = we imagine it is possible because we cannot reason that it is impossible.

    3 – Empirical = Correlative, observable, measurable (not quantifiable)

    2 – Narrative = Sympathetic (sequential, brevity).

    1 – Demonstrable = causal (descriptive, operational).

    0 – Perfect (ideal) Parsimony (Name(referrer) of transformation rules (referent). In other words, names of functions, and functions.

    The problem as I see it is that any narrative (form of brevity for the purpose of meaning) must both add information (sympathetic analogy for transfer of meaning by association) and remove information (operational detail overloading sympathetic analogy), thus leaving us with Names that refer to sequences (recipes) of operations (or natural transformations), or the sequences (recipes) for statements of Truthfulness (warrantied by due diligence of knowledge of Truth).

    Since all knowledge is fungible and justification impossible, I do not make the traditional error of categorizing knowledge as justified belief (confidence in knowledge). I treat every opportunity-for-knowledge (hypothesis) from identity through causality as knowledge and truthfulness and falsehood as a measure of it.

    I treat truth candidacy as an estimate by triangulation of the survival from due diligence under testimonialism – which unlike CR includes provides a checklist of due diligences (measures) for each dimension of reality, including costs of transformation – which we can use to compare estimates of truth. This differs from CP in that I am unable to falsify the hypothesis that cost of transformation is a proxy for opportunity cost, and therefore in matters physical(natural) and sentient(human), all other things being equal, appears (empirically and rationally) to inform CP if not solve it. Neither nature nor man refuse optimum opportunities. Nature cannot. Man appears not to. (he does err however.) I can find no existential counter examples. This roughly equates to the scientific method’s rational(logical) use of ‘parsimony’ and provides explanation for it.

    Justification is necessary in matters of the export of ethical and moral risk. So it’s not that justification has no value to man. Justification is how we defend both error (loss), and success (gain). But justification is a moral-ethical question, whereas adjudication (truth) exists independently of consequences.

    The fact that we must struggle to deflate our own behaviors in this way is indicative of our evolution as negotiating and cooperating creatures not tellers-of-truth. We evolved sympathy and utility. And truth is but a consequence of the pragmatism of negotiation.

    So to some degree I tend to think in terms of the truthfulness (survival from due diligence) of our knowledge, not ‘knowledge of truth’ (justification of our knowledge). But in practice they are the same thing from different sides of the coin: survival from due diligence against falsehood. I think I am more sensitive to this matter because CR/CP provide no means of measurement (deflation), whereas I have provided the same deflation in all possible dimensions of knowledge that has been applied to existential and pure relations by mathematics.

    I hope this is interesting for you. I don’t mean to change your mind, but merely to walk through it and see if you have criticisms, as well as to provide others with an education in what seems to be a fairly rare bit of expertise: the transition from justificationary(constructive) to evolutionary(survival) truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 10:17:00 UTC