Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • CHATGPT-4 AND TESTIMONIAL TRUTH DETAILED PROMPT: –“In Curt Doolittle’s Testimon

    CHATGPT-4 AND TESTIMONIAL TRUTH

    DETAILED PROMPT:
    –“In Curt Doolittle’s Testimonial Truth, he refers to tests of realism, naturalism, identity (unambiguity), logical consistency, operational possibility, external correspondence, bounded rational choice, reciprocal bounded rational choice, stated with causal parsimony, and with stated limits, with full accounting within those limits, and warrantied by due diligence. What do each of these requirements mean?”–

    Curt Doolittle’s Testimonial Truth is a method for determining the truthfulness of a statement made by a person. The method involves several requirements, including tests of realism, naturalism, identity (unambiguity), logical consistency, operational possibility, external correspondence, bounded rational choice, reciprocal bounded rational choice, stated with causal parsimony, and with stated limits, with full accounting within those limits, and warrantied by due diligence. Here’s what each of these requirements means:

    Realism: The statement should be based on the actual state of the world and should accurately reflect reality. This means that the statement should not be based on imaginary or unrealistic assumptions.

    Naturalism: The statement should be consistent with the laws of nature and should not rely on supernatural or unexplained phenomena.

    Identity (unambiguity): The statement should be clear and unambiguous, without any room for misinterpretation or confusion.

    Logical consistency: The statement should be internally consistent and should not contradict itself or any other known facts.

    Operational possibility: The statement should be capable of being tested or verified through empirical observation or other means.

    External correspondence: The statement should correspond to external reality and should be consistent with other known facts and observations.

    Bounded rational choice: The statement should be based on the assumption that individuals make rational choices within the constraints of their knowledge and resources.

    Reciprocal bounded rational choice: The statement should be based on the assumption that individuals interact with each other through reciprocal, bounded rational choices.

    Stated with causal parsimony: The statement should be stated in the simplest possible terms and should not rely on unnecessary or complicated explanations.

    Stated limits: The statement should be clear about its limitations and should not make claims beyond the scope of its evidence or authority.

    Full accounting: The statement should be supported by a full accounting of the evidence and reasoning used to arrive at the statement.

    Warrantied by due diligence: The speaker must have performed due diligence in arriving at the statement and must be willing to accept legal and ethical responsibility for the truthfulness of the statement.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-14 18:03:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646937233906081808

  • Sorry, I don’t do theology or ideology. I just do reality

    Sorry, I don’t do theology or ideology. I just do reality.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 13:52:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645424421824352261

    Reply addressees: @KingBlueJames

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645423930541330433

  • (Mostly. But not completely. Problem: what if the unambiguous prose itself is th

    (Mostly. But not completely. Problem: what if the unambiguous prose itself is the profound idea itself? Math, Formal Logic, Programming, the formal operational logic of law. 🙁 )
    While I want to agree, that complexity can be explained incrementally in conventional language – sufficiently to ‘get the gist’, it’s simply not true that the grammar of some ideas is reducible to ordinary language enough to understand and use.)

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-02 22:28:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642655303119372293

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642507295736188929

  • (Mostly. But not completely. Problem: what if the unambiguous prose itself is th

    (Mostly. But not completely. Problem: what if the unambiguous prose itself is the profound idea itself? Math, Formal Logic, Programming, the formal operational logic of law. 🙁 )
    While I want to agree, that complexity can be explained incrementally in conventional language – sufficiently to ‘get the gist’, it’s simply not true that the grammar of some ideas is reducible to ordinary language enough to understand and use.)

    Reply addressees: @EPoe187

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-02 22:28:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642655303043801088

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642507295736188929

  • Your problem is using a label. Always use operational prose when anything comple

    Your problem is using a label. Always use operational prose when anything complex is necessary. I intentionally use langauge that keeps the nitwits away. But if you are trying to make a point, and reach a lot of people, you can’t use ‘stakeholder capitalism’ because anyone sophisticated enough to understand it thinks its obvious and boring (and secondary to woke) and anyone who needs to underestand will ignore you. Talk cause and effecdt. If you need longer form to do it,t hen pay the eight bucks for blue checkmarks and write longer form.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 07:31:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640255294788845569

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640246417594912768

  • Your problem is using a label. Always use operational prose when anything comple

    Your problem is using a label. Always use operational prose when anything complex is necessary. I intentionally use langauge that keeps the nitwits away. But if you are trying to make a point, and reach a lot of people, you can’t use ‘stakeholder capitalism’ because anyone sophisticated enough to understand it thinks its obvious and boring (and secondary to woke) and anyone who needs to underestand will ignore you. Talk cause and effecdt. If you need longer form to do it,t hen pay the eight bucks for blue checkmarks and write longer form.

    Reply addressees: @Z3r0An0n

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 07:31:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640255294709149696

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640246417594912768

  • TEN REMAINING GREAT FLAWS IN HUMAN THOUGHT (V2. Added Four.) 1. The search for i

    TEN REMAINING GREAT FLAWS IN HUMAN THOUGHT
    (V2. Added Four.)
    1. The search for ideal truth rather than incrementally testifiable (performative) truth. (Failing to grasp truth in general).
    2. The search for justification(proof) rather than falsification(survival).
    3. The failure to distinquish between the reducibility of laws to math (before, physical, statistics), computation (during, behavioral, operations, operationalism) and simulation (after, evolutionary, survivals, supply-demand, economics), and the spectrum of rules of disambiguation (grammars, paradigms) we use to describe them. (In general the problem of ‘mathiness’, especially in physics.)
    4. The search for inconsistent utilities (paradigms) rather than a hierarchy of consistent first principles (universal paradigm), by the first principle of evolutionary computation.
    5. The search for the ideal person, behavior, wants, means, and ends, rather than means of cooperation between male and female opposites.
    6. The search for the good instead of the true, not-false, possible, and not-irreciprocal, from which we choose possible recirpocal goods.
    7. The search for positive law of thou-shall, limiting possibilities, vs negative laws of thou-shall-not, leaving open infinite possibilities.
    8. The search for political uniformity as a static optimum rather than competing diversities as an evolutionary optimum – the search for predictable certainty rather than evolutionary and adaptive uncertainty.
    9. The search for a static political model rather than an adaptive political model for conditions of war, vs going concern, vs windfalls, and how to transition between them as needed.
    10. The search for a single uniform economy rather than a hierarchy of economies suiting the capacity of rsponsibilty of individuals and groups.

    Every one of these falsehoods is hostile to the first principle of the universe: evolutionary computation, and our condition in the capture and transformation of energy per person, yielding us the greatest prosperity with which to make the greatest range of choices that will as a consequence, repeat the cycle, of evolutionary computation, and the improvement of our condition by increasing the capture and transformation of energy.

    “NO MORE ERRORS, FALSEHOODS, AND LIES”

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-22 22:06:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1638663444068028417

  • TEN REMAINING GREAT FLAWS IN HUMAN THOUGHT (V2. Added Four.) 1. The search for i

    TEN REMAINING GREAT FLAWS IN HUMAN THOUGHT
    (V2. Added Four.)
    1. The search for ideal truth rather than incrementally testifiable (performative) truth. (Failing to grasp truth in general).
    2. The search for justification(proof) rather than falsification(survival).
    3. The failure to distinquish between the reducibility of laws to math (before, physical, statistics), computation (during, behavioral, operations, operationalism) and simulation (after, evolutionary, survivals, supply-demand, economics), and the spectrum of rules of disambiguation (grammars, paradigms) we use to describe them. (In general the problem of ‘mathiness’, especially in physics.)
    4. The search for inconsistent utilities (paradigms) rather than a hierarchy of consistent first principles (universal paradigm), by the first principle of evolutionary computation.
    5. The search for the ideal person, behavior, wants, means, and ends, rather than means of cooperation between male and female opposites.
    6. The search for the good instead of the true, not-false, possible, and not-irreciprocal, from which we choose possible recirpocal goods.
    7. The search for positive law of thou-shall, limiting possibilities, vs negative laws of thou-shall-not, leaving open infinite possibilities.
    8. The search for political uniformity as a static optimum rather than competing diversities as an evolutionary optimum – the search for predictable certainty rather than evolutionary and adaptive uncertainty.
    9. The search for a static political model rather than an adaptive political model for conditions of war, vs going concern, vs windfalls, and how to transition between them as needed.
    10. The search for a single uniform economy rather than a hierarchy of economies suiting the capacity of rsponsibilty of individuals and groups.

    Every one of these falsehoods is hostile to the first principle of the universe: evolutionary computation, and our condition in the capture and transformation of energy per person, yielding us the greatest prosperity with which to make the greatest range of choices that will as a consequence, repeat the cycle, of evolutionary computation, and the improvement of our condition by increasing the capture and transformation of energy.

    “NO MORE ERRORS, FALSEHOODS, AND LIES”

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-22 22:06:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1638663443858202624

  • Brevity is the soul of wit (analogy, suggestion, deceit), while operational pros

    Brevity is the soul of wit (analogy, suggestion, deceit), while operational prose is the grammar of testimony (truth).

    I can write logic, algorithms, operational proofs (what you’re objecting to), arguments, essays, opinion, history, fiction, scripts, and poetry with near equal facility.

    But my job – requires the paradigm, logic, vocabulary, and syntax of testimonial truth: operational prose, including serialization as a mesurement in defense against ambiguity.

    It looks like ordinary language. But it’s closer to mathematics and programming, but using ordinal rather than cardinal logic.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 15:14:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635298293931556864

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635284366476861444

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Well, you don’t know this, but you should be for engaging with me, that I work in cognitive science, behavioral economics, epistemology, testimony, law, and most especially the logic of lying. So just as when you go to a doctor or lawyer and speak, and in turn they disambiguate what you’ve said into causes, I do the same. It’s just that I see how you’re lying, defrauding, cheating, stealing, undermining, projecting, defending, evading, and denying. And work in this discipline unfortunately means a vast majority of the population is about as smart, cunning, witty, funny as a preschooler.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1635284366476861444

  • Brevity is the soul of wit (analogy, suggestion, deceit), while operational pros

    Brevity is the soul of wit (analogy, suggestion, deceit), while operational prose is the grammar of testimony (truth).

    I can write logic, algorithms, operational proofs (what you’re objecting to), arguments, essays, opinion, history, fiction, scripts, and poetry with near equal facility.

    But my job – requires the paradigm, logic, vocabulary, and syntax of testimonial truth: operational prose, including serialization as a mesurement in defense against ambiguity.

    It looks like ordinary language. But it’s closer to mathematics and programming, but using ordinal rather than cardinal logic.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @goufmanouf @ConceptualJames

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 15:14:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635298293818224640

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635284366476861444

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Well, you don’t know this, but you should be for engaging with me, that I work in cognitive science, behavioral economics, epistemology, testimony, law, and most especially the logic of lying. So just as when you go to a doctor or lawyer and speak, and in turn they disambiguate what you’ve said into causes, I do the same. It’s just that I see how you’re lying, defrauding, cheating, stealing, undermining, projecting, defending, evading, and denying. And work in this discipline unfortunately means a vast majority of the population is about as smart, cunning, witty, funny as a preschooler.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1635284366476861444