Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • MORE ON LEARNING OPERATIONAL GRAMMAR by What is the difference between an actor

    MORE ON LEARNING OPERATIONAL GRAMMAR

    by

    What is the difference between an actor and subject? My understanding of traditional grammar is that:

    “John threw the ball”

    Subject-verb-object

    Which you describe as

    Actor-operation-subject

    John is an actor in this case, and the “subject” (as I was taught in school, anyway).

    Another example:

    “The fruit fell from the tree”

    Subject-verb-object

    In this sentence, one might think the actor is gravity, or the wind. Since that is what caused the change in state.

    From a testimonial or vitruvian measurement, though, it would be more like:

    “I saw the fruit fall from the tree.”

    The actor is myself as an observer? And the subject is the fruit?

    Any clarification on terms “actor” and “subject”?

    by Adam Jacob Robert Walker

    You could consider the tree as an actor as well.

    The tree produces fruit.

    But a tree isn’t necessarily following incentives. But rather it’s “act” is a result of nature adaptations or mechanisms of survival.

    I think you are correct that you’d have to switch it to the orientation of the observer.

    I saw the fruit fall from the tree (actor-action), after I went outside to get my mail (incentive to go outside and observe), and the fruit splattered on my driveway (state change on the ground).

    I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors.

    by Bill Joslin

    In english grammar the subject is the agent subject-verb-object. the subject “acts upon” the object (side note: this distinction subject “that which acts upon”and object “that which is acted upon” lay the foundation for the initial use of the terms subjective, objective. prior to the 19th century of so, religion was considered the pursuit of “objective trusth” in that one would he changed by the truth (truth acts upon the seeker) and subjective truth was what one did when they sought truth to a specific ends (such as science investigates a particular phenomenon to eventually be able to do something with it). the rise of science (seeking truth to a specific ends) “killed” objective truth – this was the assertion in Horkhiemer and Adorno’ Dialectic of enlightenment.

    by Adam Jacob Robert Walker

    Nice. That puts it in a philosophical context for me. I wasn’t aware of all that.

    by Curt Doolittle

    [I promise I saw] [gravity cause] the fruit [fall/fell] [from the tree] [to the ground.]

    Promise, Testimony, Actor, Subject of testimony, Transaction.

    Use subject or object if you want, but my point is that we need to use “actor, and in the OP that I started this discourse with, I was making the point that we habitually start sentences with the subject being acted upon to provide context, and the cost of ‘thinking’ in operational terms is the extra step required to start with actor instead – which eliminates the problem of the verb to be from the sentence structure.

    If you have a difficulty with eliminating the verb to be, start with the actor not the object( or as I prefer, subject).

    ADAM IS CORRECT:

    Actor, Subject.

    —“I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors.”—

    Well done!!!!!

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 09:51:00 UTC

  • TESTIMONY – P IS SCIENTIFIC(LOGICAL, OPERATIONAL, EMPIRICAL) ARTICULATION OF OUR

    TESTIMONY – P IS SCIENTIFIC(LOGICAL, OPERATIONAL, EMPIRICAL) ARTICULATION OF OUR ANCIENT TRADITIONS.

    by Scott Strong

    What’s brilliant about you Curt is your ability to articulate it all so methodically. The reality is these Western ideas weren’t really formed by one great philosopher but are rather an an hod, kit-bashed collection of mostly intuitive practices that our ancestors accumulated, not out of some great philosophy or moral conviction, so much as pure pragmatism in that they were the best practices that simply *worked* and because if people did things that *didn’t* work, the group would die in battle, or starve in the lean winter months.

    Propertarianism is not your invention, but rather your codification and articulation of the mostly intuitive unconscious pragmatic wisdom of our ancestors.

    ===

    (That’s right. I just wrote it down for the first time the way others have written their bibles of primitive thought in primitive language. It may not have been possible to our body of advanced thought until we had an advanced language to write it in. But we’ve been practicing it for thousands of years. And that’s why propertarianism is a product of our European civilization, not me – i’m not that important and our ancestors are. And that is why it has more legitimacy than some other nonsense some philosopher pulled out of his had. I’m just a scientists discovering and capturing the rules of western civilization.

    I’m just doing natural science in the natural law of our people – writing down the formulae.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-21 13:37:00 UTC

  • TESTIMONY (P AND CONTINGENCY) by Robert Danis What I like most about your writin

    TESTIMONY (P AND CONTINGENCY)

    by Robert Danis

    What I like most about your writings for P is that your breaking it down into the smallest possible component. Most people try to take a something as a whole and you can’t – you have to break it down into components.

    ===IMPORTANT==

    Continuous recursive disambiguation

    Convert all speech to transactions stated in a series of subjectively (humanly) testable operations.

    Meaning: first causes. 😉

    And as first causes, there are no contingent premises.

    And as non-contingent P is closed to deception by suggestion that is dependent upon ambiguity and contingency.

    This is why P defeats set logic – which is forever contingent.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-21 11:59:00 UTC

  • SIMPLE DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE (or, why you don’t get it at f

    SIMPLE DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE

    (or, why you don’t get it at first)

    Jason asks, “is this sentence correct ePrime?”

    We probably need to stop using the ePrime reference and simply teach people the steps to transforming fuzzy intuitive language to very clear operational language.

    The first step is eliminating the Copula (the connector): the verb to-be. This connector says “imply the connection” it does not state the connection. This is how ‘suggestion’ (deceit) is inserted into our otherwise very precise, english language. It’s the basis of all sophism.

    The second step, which may be necessary to complete the first step requires starting sentences with the subject rather than the actor – and this is what’s probably causing your struggle.

    P and ePrime ask you to think in terms of actor rather than subject. To put the actor before the subject in composing your “episode”. Thinking in, writing in, speaking in actors, adds a computational cycle, because the more advanced our thinking the more we’re thinking about subjects rather than actors. And the more ‘generalized’ our statement – which means the more masculine and analytic – the more the subject is the basis for context and the less the actor is the basis for content. So yes, operational language is slightly more burdensome, because it is more precise – at least until you habituate it.

    The Example:

    –“With the ability to protect it with violent defense, exercised at will, on an individual and group level, “—

    Change to:

    —At an individual or group level, [we / they] [can / develop the ability to] protect [it / or restate subject] with violent defense, exercised at will.”—

    Phrase:

    1 – actor

    2 – acted upon

    3 – consequence

    So:

    1 – Repeat with Collection of Phrases.

    2- Producing a Complete sentence.

    3- That explicitly states the COMPLETE transformation (Transaction)

    In other worlds:

    – Actor, Operation, Subject: “John threw the ball (to mark who caught it).”

    and not:

    – Subject, Actor, Operation: “The ball john threw (to mark who caught it.)”

    Language in operational terms is an accounting system

    That’s the secret of operational language “full accounting of changes in state”.

    Phrase (debit) Journal Entry , Phrase (credit) Journal Entry

    Sentence = Ledger Entry.

    Paragraph = Income Statement

    Story = Balance Sheet

    If you begin to see ‘the grammars’ in everything you will finally understand why P is so powerful … and it will, at some point, horrify you with wonder at it all.

    Language is a means of measurement.

    Arithmetic is a very precise language

    Accounting is just a very precise language.

    Geometry is another precise language

    Programming is another precise language

    P-Law is another precise language

    P-Testimony is the most precise language possible

    All language functions as a system of measurement using measurements provided by the human body. and accounting of changes in state in that measurement system. Why? Because the brain does nothing other than detect and predict, changes in state.

    We can either account well(operational language), or account poorly(ordinary language), or account deceptively (postmodern/feminist language)

    I hope this helps because it is the summary of the meaning of operational prose.

    ====

    attn: Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-21 09:00:00 UTC

  • QUICK TRANSLATION BEWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW) Metaphysic

    QUICK TRANSLATION BEWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW)

    Metaphysics: Realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, survival, compatibilism, cooperation, propertarianism, acquisitionism, action.

    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.

    Grammars: 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).

    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).

    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.

    Sociology: Compatibilism, Tripartism, Trifunctionalism.

    Cooperationism(Economics): Returns on Time in a division of labor.

    In other words: I’m describing economics. Which, as others have stated before me, appears to function as the union of the disciplines.

    PHILOSOPHY SUPERCEDED BY SCIENCE

    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.

    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.

    Philosophy served as the stage between unorganized thinking and science, and that anything that still in philosophy that had any value in decidability has been replaced by science and scientific epistemology.

    Metaphysics: Replaced by Paradigms and grammars

    Paradigms consisting of market for parsimony. Parsimony consisting of Action. Action consisting of Actionable, Testifiable, Warrantable, Free of Incentive to Deceive. Consisting of: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Rational Choice, Reciprocity, full accounting.

    Humans have developed a series of paradigms that deflate inflate, or fictionalize the most parsimonious but complete paradigm (above). In P we call these the ‘grammars’. (You can search our site for the grammars).

    Humans possess the ability to determine constant and inconstant relations (differences). And to control the use of their detection of differences. We call this ability reason when used informally. We call comparisons of sets as means of testing constant relations ‘logic’. We have produced many logics. Mathematics is the most basic – consisting of one constant relation: position. In the discipline of logic we test rules of inference. However, logic isn’t closed and so all logic al assertions are contingent.As such all non-trivial logic is falsificationary. ALL of the grammars are logics of increasing tests of constant relations within different limits.

    Epistemology: Replaced by Theory.

    Free association(falsify by reason) > hypothesis(falsify by action) > theory (falsify by market) > law (falsify by limits- or ‘exhaustion’ if you prefer)

    Truth: Replaced by Testimony (categorically, internally, operationally, externally, rational, reciprocal

    Ethics: replaced by Reciprocity ((productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of …)

    Politics: Rule of law, professional judiciary, monarchy as judge of last resort, houses for classes for markets of commons, mixed economy, soft demonstrated (market) eugenics, direction of savings to the production of commons.

    Strategy: most rapid adaptability (rate of evolution)

    Aesthetics: Transcendence (Evolution)

    Those are are all decidable propositions (Truths). That does not mean that one cannot express or a group cannot express different preferences.

    It’s hard to accept but philosophy in the pursuit of truth has ended. All philosophy can tell us is choice (preference) because preferences are not true. Philosophy as a method of moral fictionalism survives in Europe. Philosophy as propaganda sophistry and deceit exists everywhere.

    But truth and decidability have been usurped entirely by science: testimony.

    This is why philosophy departments are now included with religion in libraries and in academic budgets.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 09:23:00 UTC

  • QUICK TRANSLATION BEWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW) Metaphysic

    QUICK TRANSLATION BEWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW)

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 08:51:00 UTC

  • QUICK TRANSLATION BEWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW) Metaphysic

    QUICK TRANSLATION BEWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW)

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-19 20:13:00 UTC

  • Operationalism: Testimony using a sequence of intuitionistically(incentives), lo

    Operationalism: Testimony using a sequence of intuitionistically(incentives), logically(speech), and physically testable actions.

    Operational constraints: Realism( Material, Persistent), Naturalism(physical rules of the material universe), Operationalism(description as human actions), Empiricism(observations of results reduced to analogy of experience by physical or logical means), rational choice, reciprocity.

    Science: the production of testimony by under operationalism

    Philosophy: “it’s sorta like that but I can’t explain how”: Analogies. Excuse making. Making stuff up.

    Sigh.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-19 13:52:00 UTC

  • “The Case Against Reality” The case for woo woo pseudoscience. This is pseudosci

    “The Case Against Reality”

    The case for woo woo pseudoscience.

    This is pseudoscientific nonsense.

    We see actionable reality at actionable scale, using some pretty amazing instrumentation.

    We ‘predict’ (imagine consequences from) our model of the world, that is not real. That’s simply a lack of discipline.

    I can and have, and others can and have, explained consciousness – and with recent work it’s not even complicated.

    I’d like to see the ‘math’ he’s talking about because I’m pretty sure he’s hand-waving.

    He’s using Truth as an undefined ‘woo woo’ term (hand waving).

    A fitness payoff (more correctly, return on cost of continuous production)

    An organism that sees the world as it is (processes unnecessary information) that models the world independent of it’s capacity for action will be out-competed by an organism that reduces the world model necessary for action to the minimum necessary for action, and just competes on what works regardless of any model of the world. Well, this is only true to the point at which organisms can voluntarily cooperate – because there are no competitors to return on cooperation.

    The camera obscura, and the camera, are a purely physical thing without consciousness. Yet we see what the camera records, without manipulating it. Sure, we can’t see all the same colors. Some of us see more than others. But that’s a difference in resolution of color not a difference in any ‘truth’ we see.

    “Space and time don’t exist independent of our perception.” Well that’s demonstrably false. Space and time are vocabulary we use to describe what we perceive through sensory information. “There are other consciousnesses out there”.

    OMG…. I would eat these morons for lunch.

    https://youtu.be/dd6CQCbk2ro

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 15:17:00 UTC

  • P Methodology Produces Optimums, This Is Ideal

    P Methodology Produces Optimums, This Is Ideal https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/17/p-methodology-produces-optimums-this-is-ideal/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 01:46:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229220429547626496