Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • The difference between western thought and all other thought

    Jan 27, 2020, 9:19 AM The difference between western thought and all other thought is the difference between zero and one: infinite. Why? Truth, operationalism, completeness. Yeah, western thought is harder, and less intuitive, and less satisfying and not at all sedating. It is, however, the only means by which we have converted the universe to an instrument of man’s will.

  • The difference between western thought and all other thought

    Jan 27, 2020, 9:19 AM The difference between western thought and all other thought is the difference between zero and one: infinite. Why? Truth, operationalism, completeness. Yeah, western thought is harder, and less intuitive, and less satisfying and not at all sedating. It is, however, the only means by which we have converted the universe to an instrument of man’s will.

  • Q&A: “Curt; Do You Have a Concise Definition for Testimonialism?”

    Feb 2, 2020, 1:59 PM propertarianism.com TESTIMONIALISM by Alain Kassabian PART 1: “Testimonilaism is a series of standards including operational language, often applied to law, social systems, and incentives. The main (meta) incentive such analysis gives access to is described in Sheepdog, Logos, Stoicism, etc – technically the incentive is net agency. Testimonialism operationalizes operational epistemology: in order to facilitate that sort of high science you seem to need a high trust culture. The act of testimony is fundamental to high trust society, military, law, science, markets, and personal matters. Testimony (ideal application of speech) creates all the advantages of these institutions, that emerged by necessity when the West chose sovereignty as an organizing principle to maximize agency. Recognizing the connections here re-frames human speech, detailing the magnitude of the processes we evoke with our words and our actions. The institutions and norms we use to further our values are built out of the incentives we’ve faced and how we’ve integrated them. As intuitive as refining our speech is, it is also intuitive to obscure our speech to indulge vices and pettiness. Reducing anything, especially values down to just information and not bias is by it’s very nature going to dig at what people value. So, to the extent each of us undermines this norm, we enable the continuing parasitization and atrophying of our commons (presently: western civilization). We slim down our chances for positive Black Swans and become ever more vulnerable to the negatives Black Swans. Holding the inverse position (antifragility) seems attainable and highly useful (as in negative common law removing exposure to negative black swans and opening up the various goods and positive black swans), so again, no guarantee – but maybe altering stress response to serve rather than undercut agency by knowing the value of and how to use what we have remaining. Completing the task of optimization is all we can guarantee, investing ourselves beyond that is spiting nature (stoics make it obvious how this makes you fragile and petty). All language is motivated, and motivations promote symbiosis or they do not. Incentives can thus be divided into two catagories: incentives for net agency (Sheepdog, Logos, Law, Empiricism) and incentives that sacrifice the ideal for more immediate gain (every time any of us obscure our testimony wittingly or otherwise). Seems Biohistory’s C would be the biological conditions required to recognize/measure/optimize conditions for this incentive and V would be the conditions required to defend such an incentive. In an atrophying society perhaps the window for those higher incentives is more narrow, and the costs greater for opposing malincentives baked into leviathan like social structures, although the ultimate cost of abandoning healthy, pro-net-agency incentives is obviously greater if you frame it honestly. The precision Testimonialism affords for stoic analysis of how incentives stack and run through micro and macro social operating systems (norms) seems to reduce cognitive load. It doesn’t solve everything but it addresses the meta question of how to measure and optimize available responses (Doolittle’s “efficient capture of calories”as in Testimonialism, Propertarianism, Sheepdog, Antifragility, etc.). It shifts the focus to questions of agency and sovereignty (the conditions that underlie the various goods we pursue). On the micro level, the macro framing and organized elimination of fallacies makes shorter work of life planning, selecting information, and training your fast thinking. It’s not hard to detect when yourself or someone else is bringing your attention to something other than evidence – appealing to loading etc. Part of the micro optimization resulting from and reinforcing Testimonilaism as a norm is that removing loading and solving for agency shifts the focus to improving rather than squabbling over primordial struggles (stoicism again). This affects physical health and offers an extremely integrated sense of meaning (ie. clear definition of symbiosis across scales). You mentioned in another thread that part of the aesthetic of bothering at all against such odds, is that demonstrating value as best we can, is worth it regardless of if those odds are overcome. I agree, and consider the counter aesthetic/value system to be parasitism (not strengthening the ecosystem from which you come), which in terms of objective usefulness and my own bias provides no legitimate alternative. The first signs I usually notice of downward drag and misintegrated incentives are usually myself or someone else choosing loading and overloading over parsimony, the better one can recognize striking directly at the truth, the more obvious evasive substitutes become (hence military reporting is loud and direct, asking for only the facts). It’s a que that someone is skipping over something or semi to un-consciously avoiding information they perceive as counter to their incentives. To some degree (might depend on specifics), animosity can be inferred when incentives are guarded with deception, whether or not the person admits or realizes the incentives they answer to by operating in willful ignorance. In my mind, it stands out if I think, write, or speak something with loading – and that seems to be habituation of my fast thinking systems, so there’s less of a knee-jerk response to use careless loading (although it takes energy to realize the amount of loading people use, and then to discern when it’s appropriate – when it clarifies and transfers notions that survive empiricism). I also think letting empirical descriptions of incentives speak for themselves rather than telling people outright what to do, makes one appear more trustworthy – not to be confused with hiding one’s own biases. People seem to intuitively mistrust loading against their own biases whereas they actively look for information regarding their incentives. Although, inflating language isn’t always a bad idea, Curt had a post about how inflationary speech can actually be used to lower costs of communication and therefore further the expression of operational language, as long as we’re packaging realities to the best of our ability. Limits are also a key concept that Operational Epistemology and Sheepdog underscore the importance of, and by their very nature, grate against value systems… it’s very easy to not want to find the limit of a “beloved” notion. Yet, every statement has a limit and any view of the of the world is disjointed without sufficient emphasis on limits – this seems a common sub-optimal adaption (people refer to where their notions apply, not where they don’t – no complete testing or even guarantee it’s testable).” PART 2: “The closest thing to criticism I see for Testimonialism, Sheepdog, Logos (symbiosis raising agency) is regarding the practical access the higher tiers of incentives. I see potential pitfalls as sensible considerations for optimal application, not as contrary to the notion of Testimonilaism, ie.: 1 The idea of solving everything with words is absurd (strawman of Logos) – in reality we can use precise language to shift conditions towards the net agency (meta-incentive) 2 The idea of society not collapsing under prosperity seems far fetched and challenging (strawman of Sheepdog) – in reality solving for agency, c, v, etc. using testimonialism offers value as an optimization, not a guarantee 3 The idea of to more ideal institutions (martial societies, due diligence, warranties, honest prosecution) seems like brutal and far fetched LARPING to the modern mind (strawman of Testimonialism/Propertarianism) – in reality these are descriptions of the norms we cycle through from high to low trust The reason I don’t see these as criticism is that the process discussed is a natural one with historical precedence. People are naturally intolerant of slights against their own interests and we have produced high levels of key items like precise law, high trust, c, and v. Additionally, the fragility of modernity and of successful civilizations in general is obvious. So to criticize a map of the biological and social systems detailing what happens as you either build up or tear down pro-trust norms as some impossible ideal is to miss the point. Things will never be perfect but we can incrementally suppress predation, parasitism, and the negative sides of co-operation, and at higher levels of Agency, C, and V, it should start looking about as ideal as it gets in reality. Again, a stoic shifting of attention to optimization rather than searching for some imaginary guarantee of success is more useful and therefore congruent with any value system you have that actually represents striving for good (symbiosis). So these measures that further testimonialism by sustaining high trust (symbiosis) are the point and throwing away the tools of measurement because “life is really hard” and “that’s impossible” is clearly not as useful. There isn’t even technically a requirement to do anything any harder, picking up better tools can make it easier to do what you already do (especially if they’re built around empiricism, operational epistemology, incentives, clarity, parsimony). The other potential criticism that jumps out is for testimonialism is that “it’s censorship”, although, I see it as assumed (and Curt has also stated) that reserving access to free truthful speech is important. So, it might seem overbearing and authoritarian, but the fact is we have been and should continue to suppress deceptive behaviour that undermines our agency, sovereignty, and antifragility. This is the idea of preserving and expressing natural authority over arbitrary authority because it aligns with a meta incentive (agency gives you more of whatever you value). I sometimes wonder if this sort of adaption is innate to being or sentience regardless of what happens to any particular species: Logos, Sheepdog, the natural advantages available given sentience. Again, I agree that for personal sanity and maximized success across larger scales, a focus on what is in our control (demonstrating value) is a better frame for considering the odds, than to consider them primarily for how bad they seem (a result affected by our actions, but ultimately beyond our absolute control). Excuses for not taking the best shot is weak in the micro and macro sense, especially in terms of survivability and aesthetics. Again, I suppose the counter aesthetic is parasitism (not bothering to strengthen the ecosystem from which you come) and that’s home how valid too (producing alienation, evasion, and excess fragility in the macro and micro)? Maybe it’s bias to prefer the pole that corresponds to the in built non-psychopath intuition (as poorly as we stick to it at times) – but it seems justified describing the empirical realities of each pole (high and low trust). There are a few versions of this list, but these are essentially the 6-8 standards of measurement referred to in Testimonialism: A concise definition of Testimonialism What is the adjective form of truth?: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-adjective-form-of-truth/answer/Curt-Doolittle

  • Q&A: “Curt; Do You Have a Concise Definition for Testimonialism?”

    Feb 2, 2020, 1:59 PM propertarianism.com TESTIMONIALISM by Alain Kassabian PART 1: “Testimonilaism is a series of standards including operational language, often applied to law, social systems, and incentives. The main (meta) incentive such analysis gives access to is described in Sheepdog, Logos, Stoicism, etc – technically the incentive is net agency. Testimonialism operationalizes operational epistemology: in order to facilitate that sort of high science you seem to need a high trust culture. The act of testimony is fundamental to high trust society, military, law, science, markets, and personal matters. Testimony (ideal application of speech) creates all the advantages of these institutions, that emerged by necessity when the West chose sovereignty as an organizing principle to maximize agency. Recognizing the connections here re-frames human speech, detailing the magnitude of the processes we evoke with our words and our actions. The institutions and norms we use to further our values are built out of the incentives we’ve faced and how we’ve integrated them. As intuitive as refining our speech is, it is also intuitive to obscure our speech to indulge vices and pettiness. Reducing anything, especially values down to just information and not bias is by it’s very nature going to dig at what people value. So, to the extent each of us undermines this norm, we enable the continuing parasitization and atrophying of our commons (presently: western civilization). We slim down our chances for positive Black Swans and become ever more vulnerable to the negatives Black Swans. Holding the inverse position (antifragility) seems attainable and highly useful (as in negative common law removing exposure to negative black swans and opening up the various goods and positive black swans), so again, no guarantee – but maybe altering stress response to serve rather than undercut agency by knowing the value of and how to use what we have remaining. Completing the task of optimization is all we can guarantee, investing ourselves beyond that is spiting nature (stoics make it obvious how this makes you fragile and petty). All language is motivated, and motivations promote symbiosis or they do not. Incentives can thus be divided into two catagories: incentives for net agency (Sheepdog, Logos, Law, Empiricism) and incentives that sacrifice the ideal for more immediate gain (every time any of us obscure our testimony wittingly or otherwise). Seems Biohistory’s C would be the biological conditions required to recognize/measure/optimize conditions for this incentive and V would be the conditions required to defend such an incentive. In an atrophying society perhaps the window for those higher incentives is more narrow, and the costs greater for opposing malincentives baked into leviathan like social structures, although the ultimate cost of abandoning healthy, pro-net-agency incentives is obviously greater if you frame it honestly. The precision Testimonialism affords for stoic analysis of how incentives stack and run through micro and macro social operating systems (norms) seems to reduce cognitive load. It doesn’t solve everything but it addresses the meta question of how to measure and optimize available responses (Doolittle’s “efficient capture of calories”as in Testimonialism, Propertarianism, Sheepdog, Antifragility, etc.). It shifts the focus to questions of agency and sovereignty (the conditions that underlie the various goods we pursue). On the micro level, the macro framing and organized elimination of fallacies makes shorter work of life planning, selecting information, and training your fast thinking. It’s not hard to detect when yourself or someone else is bringing your attention to something other than evidence – appealing to loading etc. Part of the micro optimization resulting from and reinforcing Testimonilaism as a norm is that removing loading and solving for agency shifts the focus to improving rather than squabbling over primordial struggles (stoicism again). This affects physical health and offers an extremely integrated sense of meaning (ie. clear definition of symbiosis across scales). You mentioned in another thread that part of the aesthetic of bothering at all against such odds, is that demonstrating value as best we can, is worth it regardless of if those odds are overcome. I agree, and consider the counter aesthetic/value system to be parasitism (not strengthening the ecosystem from which you come), which in terms of objective usefulness and my own bias provides no legitimate alternative. The first signs I usually notice of downward drag and misintegrated incentives are usually myself or someone else choosing loading and overloading over parsimony, the better one can recognize striking directly at the truth, the more obvious evasive substitutes become (hence military reporting is loud and direct, asking for only the facts). It’s a que that someone is skipping over something or semi to un-consciously avoiding information they perceive as counter to their incentives. To some degree (might depend on specifics), animosity can be inferred when incentives are guarded with deception, whether or not the person admits or realizes the incentives they answer to by operating in willful ignorance. In my mind, it stands out if I think, write, or speak something with loading – and that seems to be habituation of my fast thinking systems, so there’s less of a knee-jerk response to use careless loading (although it takes energy to realize the amount of loading people use, and then to discern when it’s appropriate – when it clarifies and transfers notions that survive empiricism). I also think letting empirical descriptions of incentives speak for themselves rather than telling people outright what to do, makes one appear more trustworthy – not to be confused with hiding one’s own biases. People seem to intuitively mistrust loading against their own biases whereas they actively look for information regarding their incentives. Although, inflating language isn’t always a bad idea, Curt had a post about how inflationary speech can actually be used to lower costs of communication and therefore further the expression of operational language, as long as we’re packaging realities to the best of our ability. Limits are also a key concept that Operational Epistemology and Sheepdog underscore the importance of, and by their very nature, grate against value systems… it’s very easy to not want to find the limit of a “beloved” notion. Yet, every statement has a limit and any view of the of the world is disjointed without sufficient emphasis on limits – this seems a common sub-optimal adaption (people refer to where their notions apply, not where they don’t – no complete testing or even guarantee it’s testable).” PART 2: “The closest thing to criticism I see for Testimonialism, Sheepdog, Logos (symbiosis raising agency) is regarding the practical access the higher tiers of incentives. I see potential pitfalls as sensible considerations for optimal application, not as contrary to the notion of Testimonilaism, ie.: 1 The idea of solving everything with words is absurd (strawman of Logos) – in reality we can use precise language to shift conditions towards the net agency (meta-incentive) 2 The idea of society not collapsing under prosperity seems far fetched and challenging (strawman of Sheepdog) – in reality solving for agency, c, v, etc. using testimonialism offers value as an optimization, not a guarantee 3 The idea of to more ideal institutions (martial societies, due diligence, warranties, honest prosecution) seems like brutal and far fetched LARPING to the modern mind (strawman of Testimonialism/Propertarianism) – in reality these are descriptions of the norms we cycle through from high to low trust The reason I don’t see these as criticism is that the process discussed is a natural one with historical precedence. People are naturally intolerant of slights against their own interests and we have produced high levels of key items like precise law, high trust, c, and v. Additionally, the fragility of modernity and of successful civilizations in general is obvious. So to criticize a map of the biological and social systems detailing what happens as you either build up or tear down pro-trust norms as some impossible ideal is to miss the point. Things will never be perfect but we can incrementally suppress predation, parasitism, and the negative sides of co-operation, and at higher levels of Agency, C, and V, it should start looking about as ideal as it gets in reality. Again, a stoic shifting of attention to optimization rather than searching for some imaginary guarantee of success is more useful and therefore congruent with any value system you have that actually represents striving for good (symbiosis). So these measures that further testimonialism by sustaining high trust (symbiosis) are the point and throwing away the tools of measurement because “life is really hard” and “that’s impossible” is clearly not as useful. There isn’t even technically a requirement to do anything any harder, picking up better tools can make it easier to do what you already do (especially if they’re built around empiricism, operational epistemology, incentives, clarity, parsimony). The other potential criticism that jumps out is for testimonialism is that “it’s censorship”, although, I see it as assumed (and Curt has also stated) that reserving access to free truthful speech is important. So, it might seem overbearing and authoritarian, but the fact is we have been and should continue to suppress deceptive behaviour that undermines our agency, sovereignty, and antifragility. This is the idea of preserving and expressing natural authority over arbitrary authority because it aligns with a meta incentive (agency gives you more of whatever you value). I sometimes wonder if this sort of adaption is innate to being or sentience regardless of what happens to any particular species: Logos, Sheepdog, the natural advantages available given sentience. Again, I agree that for personal sanity and maximized success across larger scales, a focus on what is in our control (demonstrating value) is a better frame for considering the odds, than to consider them primarily for how bad they seem (a result affected by our actions, but ultimately beyond our absolute control). Excuses for not taking the best shot is weak in the micro and macro sense, especially in terms of survivability and aesthetics. Again, I suppose the counter aesthetic is parasitism (not bothering to strengthen the ecosystem from which you come) and that’s home how valid too (producing alienation, evasion, and excess fragility in the macro and micro)? Maybe it’s bias to prefer the pole that corresponds to the in built non-psychopath intuition (as poorly as we stick to it at times) – but it seems justified describing the empirical realities of each pole (high and low trust). There are a few versions of this list, but these are essentially the 6-8 standards of measurement referred to in Testimonialism: A concise definition of Testimonialism What is the adjective form of truth?: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-adjective-form-of-truth/answer/Curt-Doolittle

  • Quick Translation Beween Philosophy and Propertarianism (natural Law)

    Feb 20, 2020, 8:51 AM Metaphysics: Realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, survival, compatibilism, cooperation, propertarianism, acquisitionism, action. Operationalism: testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement) Science: testimony in empirical terms (observation of demonstrated evidence) expressed in a commensurable terms (operational). Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuitionistic, and mind as motion(no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state. Epistemology: Competition between justification(hypothesis), operation(theory) and empiricism(evidence) at increasing scales (self-reason via positiva-justification, via-negativa and via-positiva-tests, via-negativa market survival) Truthfulness: Due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, deceit, in performative, promissory testimony in complete sentences that are consistent, correspondent, operational, limited, complete, and coherent. Axiology: value: acquisitionism: acquisition of property in toto defined by demonstrated interest (IOW self reported values never reflect demonstrated preference, and demonstrated preference can always be expressed as acquisition of property in toto -a gain yielding a fully commensurable system of measurement), Ethics: Reciprocity – via negativa, all ethnical and moral questions are decidable by tests of fully accounted reciprocity. In other words: I’m describing economics. Which, as others have stated before me, appears to function as the union of the disciplines. Philosophy: Do we think philosophy produces Truth, Meaning, or Choice? As far as I can tell Law, Economics, Science, Mathematics, and the human logical facility (differences in constant relations) produce testimony. As far as I can tell The Grammars (which you don’t know yet) produce the most parsimonious paradigm. Philosophy considers ideals, rarely if ever costs, means of production(models), possibilities(consequences and externalities). So what is the remaining function of philosophy? Reorganization of preferences and means of achieving them given the truth we have identified with “science in toto”: (law, economics, science, math, logical facility). In other words, discovery of truth (science) selection of preference (philosophy), sedation or abandonment (theology). Which makes sense to me since Math(measurement), Science(matter) and Economics (people) produce evidence, law produces testimony and decidability independent of preference, and philosophy produces preference, and as far as I can tell theology allows people to escape the work of philosophy, law, and science – leading to graceful failure as our knowledge and ability decreases from science to norm or law, to philosophy, to theology.

  • Quick Translation Beween Philosophy and Propertarianism (natural Law)

    Feb 20, 2020, 8:51 AM Metaphysics: Realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, survival, compatibilism, cooperation, propertarianism, acquisitionism, action. Operationalism: testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement) Science: testimony in empirical terms (observation of demonstrated evidence) expressed in a commensurable terms (operational). Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuitionistic, and mind as motion(no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state. Epistemology: Competition between justification(hypothesis), operation(theory) and empiricism(evidence) at increasing scales (self-reason via positiva-justification, via-negativa and via-positiva-tests, via-negativa market survival) Truthfulness: Due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, deceit, in performative, promissory testimony in complete sentences that are consistent, correspondent, operational, limited, complete, and coherent. Axiology: value: acquisitionism: acquisition of property in toto defined by demonstrated interest (IOW self reported values never reflect demonstrated preference, and demonstrated preference can always be expressed as acquisition of property in toto -a gain yielding a fully commensurable system of measurement), Ethics: Reciprocity – via negativa, all ethnical and moral questions are decidable by tests of fully accounted reciprocity. In other words: I’m describing economics. Which, as others have stated before me, appears to function as the union of the disciplines. Philosophy: Do we think philosophy produces Truth, Meaning, or Choice? As far as I can tell Law, Economics, Science, Mathematics, and the human logical facility (differences in constant relations) produce testimony. As far as I can tell The Grammars (which you don’t know yet) produce the most parsimonious paradigm. Philosophy considers ideals, rarely if ever costs, means of production(models), possibilities(consequences and externalities). So what is the remaining function of philosophy? Reorganization of preferences and means of achieving them given the truth we have identified with “science in toto”: (law, economics, science, math, logical facility). In other words, discovery of truth (science) selection of preference (philosophy), sedation or abandonment (theology). Which makes sense to me since Math(measurement), Science(matter) and Economics (people) produce evidence, law produces testimony and decidability independent of preference, and philosophy produces preference, and as far as I can tell theology allows people to escape the work of philosophy, law, and science – leading to graceful failure as our knowledge and ability decreases from science to norm or law, to philosophy, to theology.

  • Yves Raphael Burri Demands Platonism

    Mar 18, 2020, 12:50 PM Philosophy is just verbal idealism (verbal sophistry) rather than supernatural Idealism (supernatural sophistry). Science is the application of the process of law to testimony about information itself: epistemology. If you can’t do science: descriptions of operations, then you’re telling fictions. Fictions may be all you can understand, because you lack the training to disambiguate actionability from imaginability, and imaginability from existential possibility. Between Yves, ITV, and closing with CurtD.

    —“But the attack on Platonism is just an infantile cope of autistic people who can’t understand the theory of forms. “If I can’t touch a perfect circle it does not exist” well what’s more real the imperfect circle you actually end up drawing using technology or the perfect circle you aspire to drawing. If anything, the perfect circle came before whatever you ended up doing. Existed while your creation exists and will exists after your creation suffered entropy death. Plato was right in the mental dimension. Aristotle was right in the physical dimension. But at the end both are changing illusions and all that exists is the unchanging infinite out of which both infinities evolved and will involve back to. … It’s even dumber to deny the mental realm than to deny the physicality realm. Materialists are no better than solipsist.— Yves Raphael Burri —“I’m glad you’re enjoying the talks. Platonism isn’t my field of expertise, but I find it hard to believe your “autistic coping” theory. I think the more likely explanation is that you’re just wrong.”—In Truth Victorious —“Well the debate on Mind vs. Matter has been going on since the dawn of philosophy. Now PrOpErTaRiAn’s supposedly have settled it in favor of Materialism? This angers me every time I hear it. People with autism have problems with abstract and conceptual thinking. Some people in this intellectual movement pride themselves to being autistic. Naturally its not a coincidence that they cannot understand the concept of a circle existing even though they cannot find one that they can measure. I am not wrong im just ahead of most people on these subjects and decided to force people out of their ignorance. … You want to save western civilisation and are still stuck in finding laws to guide and limit the actions of the Vaishyas, protect Shudras and overthrow the current order by reawakening the Kshatriyas which the “new world order where there is no law of the jungle” has suppressed into inaction. However the most important thing, the one thing that actually needs to be done first is to reestablish the perennial philosophy and a brahmin class that spreads it. Without this all our attempts are futile. Everybody will eventually come to understand that, I just have already done so.”— —“I dont think I have a problem with abstract and conceptual thinking, or the concept of an ideal circle that exists but can’t be measured. I think the question is, if those concepts aren’t externally corespondent, what predictive value do they have in the material world? … If you promise me that a circle exists that can’t be measured, what is the value of your promise? Your promise means nothing because it can’t be validated or invalidated, and has no corresponding external relevance, no?””—In Truth Victorious —“If I promise you that there exists an ideal, perfect circle, that you can reason with your minds eye although yet you cannot create with your body then over time you will get closer and closer to perfection. I show you the path and you constantly approximate yourself to perfection. >>> Upward evolution”—Yves Raphael Burri

    (He means if I promise you that having experienced a circle you can imagine a circle that’s true. It is not possible as far as I know to imagine an ‘ideal’ circle out of thin air without having experienced one.)

    —“Yes, that sounds like Plato. Why do you think.an autistic person can’t cope with that? Is it possible there is another explanation?”—In Truth Victorious

    Where does it exist? I know the function of the human brain as well as the top .1% of people in the field. So I know how the brain constructs the prediction of a circle, that you call an ‘idea’ or ‘ideal’ circle from memories of circles. I also know how why you think there exists an ideal, and how that sense is stored along with those memories. I also know what causes you to believe that an ideal exists and why the word ideal is attractive to you, and what causes you to confuse the existence of such a thing with the imagination of a thing. These are all purely bio-mechanical processes, occuring in well understood cells, faster and with less persistence than you can introspectively observe, just as you cannot introspectively observe how you make your arms move – and for exactly the same reasons.

    Existence = Persistence = Independent of human perception = independent of human existence.

    A circle consists of a mark = a repeating mark = a repeating mark as a category = a category we have given a name to. But that category consists of nothing more than a sample of observations that are not stored in your brain as images like photographs but an association of fragments stored as patterns of predictions of edges in sequence. We can test this by asking you to draw what you think you imagine. Learning to draw teaches you the scale of illusion of memory just as writing down your prediction of the next few days varies from what you actually do. Thoughts and ideas are constructed and reconstructed in real time by every rehearsal (repetition). The capacity of humans to identify shapes exists The capacity of humans to draw circles exists. The memory of circles exists. The contract for shared experience with others exists. The name of that shared experience we call circles with others exists. That’s all. We are often confused by basic geometric shapes and basic numbers because of their scale independence. We do not make the same mistake with other referencts because they fail at scale independence. The same is true for actionability or many other human traits. But these are just cognitive biases that we fail to test. BTW: When you use the term ‘autistic’ to refer to ‘analytic’ you don’t understand what it means. It means we have greater ability to distinguish between sensation, intuition, emotion, imagination, and observation just like we have greater ability to DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EVERYTHING ELSE. That’s what a male brain does: compartmentalize. This is why men make better political decisions, make better group observations and women make better individual decision and individual observations. Analytic = break into component parts – which is where tool making comes from. We also know that the female brain cannot compartmentalize or deconflate – especially the difference between desirability and truth. I understand that humans vary in the distribution of male and female cognitive traits, but less so in male and female intuitionistic traits. Here is the reality: you want to desperately rely on intuition and imagination and not measurement and reason. the question is why do you so desperately wish to? The answer is in the structure of your brain, and the training of your brain. The biological revolution of Watson and Crick, the technological revolution of Babbage and Turing, Darwinian revolution and the19th century scientific revolution, the american constitution, smith, locke, hume’s british enlightenment, the english constitution, the magna carta, the traditional laws of the european peoples, the works of aristotle, democritus, and archimedes – were tediously analytic documents. There is no evidence that POLITICAL ORDER requires anything other than science, economics, and law. There is evidence that the female and adolescent mind needs literature, and the child mind needs mythos and fables. The fact that these demands reflect the lateral and longitudinal organization of the brain is rather obvious. The fact that we can train children into adolescents, adolescents into adults at increasing costs is what it is: a matter of cost in relation to stage of development, and limit of possible development (intelligence, conscientiousness).

  • Yves Raphael Burri Demands Platonism

    Mar 18, 2020, 12:50 PM Philosophy is just verbal idealism (verbal sophistry) rather than supernatural Idealism (supernatural sophistry). Science is the application of the process of law to testimony about information itself: epistemology. If you can’t do science: descriptions of operations, then you’re telling fictions. Fictions may be all you can understand, because you lack the training to disambiguate actionability from imaginability, and imaginability from existential possibility. Between Yves, ITV, and closing with CurtD.

    —“But the attack on Platonism is just an infantile cope of autistic people who can’t understand the theory of forms. “If I can’t touch a perfect circle it does not exist” well what’s more real the imperfect circle you actually end up drawing using technology or the perfect circle you aspire to drawing. If anything, the perfect circle came before whatever you ended up doing. Existed while your creation exists and will exists after your creation suffered entropy death. Plato was right in the mental dimension. Aristotle was right in the physical dimension. But at the end both are changing illusions and all that exists is the unchanging infinite out of which both infinities evolved and will involve back to. … It’s even dumber to deny the mental realm than to deny the physicality realm. Materialists are no better than solipsist.— Yves Raphael Burri —“I’m glad you’re enjoying the talks. Platonism isn’t my field of expertise, but I find it hard to believe your “autistic coping” theory. I think the more likely explanation is that you’re just wrong.”—In Truth Victorious —“Well the debate on Mind vs. Matter has been going on since the dawn of philosophy. Now PrOpErTaRiAn’s supposedly have settled it in favor of Materialism? This angers me every time I hear it. People with autism have problems with abstract and conceptual thinking. Some people in this intellectual movement pride themselves to being autistic. Naturally its not a coincidence that they cannot understand the concept of a circle existing even though they cannot find one that they can measure. I am not wrong im just ahead of most people on these subjects and decided to force people out of their ignorance. … You want to save western civilisation and are still stuck in finding laws to guide and limit the actions of the Vaishyas, protect Shudras and overthrow the current order by reawakening the Kshatriyas which the “new world order where there is no law of the jungle” has suppressed into inaction. However the most important thing, the one thing that actually needs to be done first is to reestablish the perennial philosophy and a brahmin class that spreads it. Without this all our attempts are futile. Everybody will eventually come to understand that, I just have already done so.”— —“I dont think I have a problem with abstract and conceptual thinking, or the concept of an ideal circle that exists but can’t be measured. I think the question is, if those concepts aren’t externally corespondent, what predictive value do they have in the material world? … If you promise me that a circle exists that can’t be measured, what is the value of your promise? Your promise means nothing because it can’t be validated or invalidated, and has no corresponding external relevance, no?””—In Truth Victorious —“If I promise you that there exists an ideal, perfect circle, that you can reason with your minds eye although yet you cannot create with your body then over time you will get closer and closer to perfection. I show you the path and you constantly approximate yourself to perfection. >>> Upward evolution”—Yves Raphael Burri

    (He means if I promise you that having experienced a circle you can imagine a circle that’s true. It is not possible as far as I know to imagine an ‘ideal’ circle out of thin air without having experienced one.)

    —“Yes, that sounds like Plato. Why do you think.an autistic person can’t cope with that? Is it possible there is another explanation?”—In Truth Victorious

    Where does it exist? I know the function of the human brain as well as the top .1% of people in the field. So I know how the brain constructs the prediction of a circle, that you call an ‘idea’ or ‘ideal’ circle from memories of circles. I also know how why you think there exists an ideal, and how that sense is stored along with those memories. I also know what causes you to believe that an ideal exists and why the word ideal is attractive to you, and what causes you to confuse the existence of such a thing with the imagination of a thing. These are all purely bio-mechanical processes, occuring in well understood cells, faster and with less persistence than you can introspectively observe, just as you cannot introspectively observe how you make your arms move – and for exactly the same reasons.

    Existence = Persistence = Independent of human perception = independent of human existence.

    A circle consists of a mark = a repeating mark = a repeating mark as a category = a category we have given a name to. But that category consists of nothing more than a sample of observations that are not stored in your brain as images like photographs but an association of fragments stored as patterns of predictions of edges in sequence. We can test this by asking you to draw what you think you imagine. Learning to draw teaches you the scale of illusion of memory just as writing down your prediction of the next few days varies from what you actually do. Thoughts and ideas are constructed and reconstructed in real time by every rehearsal (repetition). The capacity of humans to identify shapes exists The capacity of humans to draw circles exists. The memory of circles exists. The contract for shared experience with others exists. The name of that shared experience we call circles with others exists. That’s all. We are often confused by basic geometric shapes and basic numbers because of their scale independence. We do not make the same mistake with other referencts because they fail at scale independence. The same is true for actionability or many other human traits. But these are just cognitive biases that we fail to test. BTW: When you use the term ‘autistic’ to refer to ‘analytic’ you don’t understand what it means. It means we have greater ability to distinguish between sensation, intuition, emotion, imagination, and observation just like we have greater ability to DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EVERYTHING ELSE. That’s what a male brain does: compartmentalize. This is why men make better political decisions, make better group observations and women make better individual decision and individual observations. Analytic = break into component parts – which is where tool making comes from. We also know that the female brain cannot compartmentalize or deconflate – especially the difference between desirability and truth. I understand that humans vary in the distribution of male and female cognitive traits, but less so in male and female intuitionistic traits. Here is the reality: you want to desperately rely on intuition and imagination and not measurement and reason. the question is why do you so desperately wish to? The answer is in the structure of your brain, and the training of your brain. The biological revolution of Watson and Crick, the technological revolution of Babbage and Turing, Darwinian revolution and the19th century scientific revolution, the american constitution, smith, locke, hume’s british enlightenment, the english constitution, the magna carta, the traditional laws of the european peoples, the works of aristotle, democritus, and archimedes – were tediously analytic documents. There is no evidence that POLITICAL ORDER requires anything other than science, economics, and law. There is evidence that the female and adolescent mind needs literature, and the child mind needs mythos and fables. The fact that these demands reflect the lateral and longitudinal organization of the brain is rather obvious. The fact that we can train children into adolescents, adolescents into adults at increasing costs is what it is: a matter of cost in relation to stage of development, and limit of possible development (intelligence, conscientiousness).

  • Intuition Is a Jealous Elephant.

    Mar 22, 2020, 8:43 PM I spent years on the analytic, logical, operational, and empirical to climb through the ladder of disciplines one ring at a time, and finally reach the end – religion and aesthetics. And the conversation followed a predictable trajectory. An indifferent “Huh?” to “Yes, yes” enthusiastic engagement. Everyone wanted me to work on philosophy, secular theology, and religion BEFORE I constructed the scaffolding underneath it – so that I wasn’t hanging on priors – just the truth. … Now watch as everyone else reverts to prior despite all the work. You know why? No one, or almost no one, ever learns, adapts, changes, evolves. We want power over our mind, our emotions, our environment, and others. And we want it on our terms. And we want the grammar our brain wants. We want any excuse to confirm our priors. Because the cost of cognitive reconstruction is too high. Can you help it? No. You will gain the ability to speak about your bias in more precise terms. You will adopt the parts of P that solve problems for you – explanatory power or justification of priors. You will imitate those who you can benefit from. And those of us for whom truth is enough, were destined to be here all along. We just know how to speak the truth now in the language of truth: the laws of nature, the natural law, and the law of evolution and transcendence. Intuition is a jealous elephant. ( Our consciousness is not just a rider on the elephant of our intuition, on the landscape of our genes. The elephant is not just undisciplined. it jealously guards its independence from our consciousness. )

  • Intuition Is a Jealous Elephant.

    Mar 22, 2020, 8:43 PM I spent years on the analytic, logical, operational, and empirical to climb through the ladder of disciplines one ring at a time, and finally reach the end – religion and aesthetics. And the conversation followed a predictable trajectory. An indifferent “Huh?” to “Yes, yes” enthusiastic engagement. Everyone wanted me to work on philosophy, secular theology, and religion BEFORE I constructed the scaffolding underneath it – so that I wasn’t hanging on priors – just the truth. … Now watch as everyone else reverts to prior despite all the work. You know why? No one, or almost no one, ever learns, adapts, changes, evolves. We want power over our mind, our emotions, our environment, and others. And we want it on our terms. And we want the grammar our brain wants. We want any excuse to confirm our priors. Because the cost of cognitive reconstruction is too high. Can you help it? No. You will gain the ability to speak about your bias in more precise terms. You will adopt the parts of P that solve problems for you – explanatory power or justification of priors. You will imitate those who you can benefit from. And those of us for whom truth is enough, were destined to be here all along. We just know how to speak the truth now in the language of truth: the laws of nature, the natural law, and the law of evolution and transcendence. Intuition is a jealous elephant. ( Our consciousness is not just a rider on the elephant of our intuition, on the landscape of our genes. The elephant is not just undisciplined. it jealously guards its independence from our consciousness. )