Theme: Operationalism

  • The cause of all human experience is explicable in operational language

    The cause of all human experience is explicable in operational language.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-18 11:37:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755003672497623041

    Reply addressees: @excarcini @garrettlgray @Wasian_NRx @DonRadolf @jordanbpeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754819726644158464


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754819726644158464

  • Once you CAN explain everything in objective terms, the question is:why choose n

    Once you CAN explain everything in objective terms, the question is:why choose not to?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-17 20:01:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754768022645145601

    Reply addressees: @garrettlgray @Wasian_NRx @DonRadolf @jordanbpeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754765885898760192


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754765885898760192

  • THE INEFFABLE? QUESTION:—“So the ineffable has no place?”— I find ineffabili

    THE INEFFABLE?

    QUESTION:—“So the ineffable has no place?”—

    I find ineffability to be an exceptional excuse fo preserving obscurantism and deceit. There is nothing inexplicable. There are things we merely are too ignorant to explain.

    As far as I know any human experience is conveyable by one means or another. The causal explanation of that experience is NOT THE SAME as the experience itself. But that does not mean that the causal explanation is not necessary and sufficient for the explanation of the experience. A recipe is necessary for a cake, but eating a cake is necessary for the experience of eating it. We may eat a cake without knowing how to make it by the recipe. But we cannot claim that the recipe for creating the experience of the cake is unknowable.

    Man is part of the universe and subject to the same constructions. There is nothing mysterious about it.

    The most serious problem we face is that the search system (system 1) and the action system (moving body parts) is insulated from our introspection. But that does not mean that we cannot use other tools and technology to perceive what occurs in our minds and bodies just as we use tools to observe what occurs in micro, and macro space outside of human scale.

    Our emotions are reactions to change in state of inventory (Property) thus informing us to act to acquire and defend inventory (property). There is nothing more to know I think. Or rather, psychology seems to be telling us only that we possess a lot of cognitive biasses to compel us to act optimistically in a hostile world where in we are largely ignorant.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-17 05:49:00 UTC

  • And thereby test our imagination against actions in reality. I think operational

    And thereby test our imagination against actions in reality. I think operationalism was the movement that failed the 20thc


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-12 05:24:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752735410183364609

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752734227532161024


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752734227532161024

  • be extended to operational language so that we test existential possibility, and

    … be extended to operational language so that we test existential possibility, and unite words in our minds with actions.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-12 05:24:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752735271851003904

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752734227532161024


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752734227532161024

  • I think I have tried to demonstrate that the analytic movement (internally consi

    I think I have tried to demonstrate that the analytic movement (internally consistent, testable statements) must ….


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-12 05:22:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752734983257747456

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752734227532161024


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/752734227532161024

  • Crossing my fingers that we will soon depart the STATISTICALLY CORRELATIVE era o

    Crossing my fingers that we will soon depart the STATISTICALLY CORRELATIVE era of policy, and enter the OPERATIONALLY EXISTENTIAL era of policy.

    Will science defeat the era of pseudoscience?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-28 01:51:00 UTC

  • Converting From Accusations of Falsehood To Accusations of Fraud.

    You see, I only have to testify to what I can know, and I only CAN testify to what I can know. So if I can’t know something I can’t testify to it. I can only say “I don’t know’. And in the tradeoff between “i don’t know ‘but’, and ‘I just don’t know so I can’t say’, we only need to look for perverse incentives.

    You might not realize it but I’m calling people who do what leftists do (and religious people as well) mere liars. Sophisticated lying. Lying to the self as well as others. But in the end, mere liars. We lie for many reasons. We lie to ourselves. We need the mystical part of religion to lie to ourselves. Becuase the curse of reason is that we know things we wish not to. And apparently the price of reason is that we must invent un-reason in order to compensate for the horror of reason. Yet some of us, have the courage to look fate in the face and de-conflate the moral and the true. We provide ourselves few psychological comforts other than the joy of life. We know that we must not harm, must not steal, must not tell black lies. But we do not know what is right or true. We know only what is wrong and what is error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception. The rest of knowledge and action and experience is up to us to choose from. But why do some of us have this courage and others not? It’s because for some of us, almost all our intuitions and ideas fail, so we need recipes to follow in order to succeed, simply by not failing. It is because, for some of us, we need assistance deciding between our ideas so that we choose the ones least likely to fail. It is because, for some of us, we must decide conflicts between others who have different perceptions of events – and to resolve those disputes without favoritism and fear of retaliation. In other words, because some of us are better at deciding than others.
  • Converting From Accusations of Falsehood To Accusations of Fraud.

    You see, I only have to testify to what I can know, and I only CAN testify to what I can know. So if I can’t know something I can’t testify to it. I can only say “I don’t know’. And in the tradeoff between “i don’t know ‘but’, and ‘I just don’t know so I can’t say’, we only need to look for perverse incentives.

    You might not realize it but I’m calling people who do what leftists do (and religious people as well) mere liars. Sophisticated lying. Lying to the self as well as others. But in the end, mere liars. We lie for many reasons. We lie to ourselves. We need the mystical part of religion to lie to ourselves. Becuase the curse of reason is that we know things we wish not to. And apparently the price of reason is that we must invent un-reason in order to compensate for the horror of reason. Yet some of us, have the courage to look fate in the face and de-conflate the moral and the true. We provide ourselves few psychological comforts other than the joy of life. We know that we must not harm, must not steal, must not tell black lies. But we do not know what is right or true. We know only what is wrong and what is error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception. The rest of knowledge and action and experience is up to us to choose from. But why do some of us have this courage and others not? It’s because for some of us, almost all our intuitions and ideas fail, so we need recipes to follow in order to succeed, simply by not failing. It is because, for some of us, we need assistance deciding between our ideas so that we choose the ones least likely to fail. It is because, for some of us, we must decide conflicts between others who have different perceptions of events – and to resolve those disputes without favoritism and fear of retaliation. In other words, because some of us are better at deciding than others.
  • We can make use of whatever free associations our unobservable minds give us. Th

    We can make use of whatever free associations our unobservable minds give us. That says nothing about the truth of anything. it says only about the utility of randomly generated meaningful ideas.

    So personal philosophy(religion) can be constructed of such nonsense. Because people need to act in a way that they can feel confident in acting or they would be unable to act.

    But philosophy as a science: in which we seek decidability between different ideas, and to limit the damage of others ideas is something quite different.

    This is what separates personal ‘philosophy’ which is not philosophy per se, but philosophy by analogy…. and political philosophy by which we create ethics, morals, norms, laws, institutions, commons, and war.

    This is the difference between what you call philosophy and has nothing to do with truth (decidability) and the science of decidability that is provided by attempts at using truth to decide between one thing and another – especially in matters of conflict.

    So as I say: it doesn’t matter how you come up with ideas. Just don’t call it true, don’t call it philosophy, and don’t call it science.

    It is what it is: justification for working with personal intuition sot hat you need not depend on others for guidance.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-21 06:04:00 UTC