Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550167736 Timestamp) —“CURT: WAS HEIDEGGER RIGHT ABOUT THE CURSE OF MATHINESS?”— —“While we’re on this. Wasn’t that one of Hiedegger’s points all along, too? Every philosopher after Plato and Aristotle, according to him, had gone in the wrong direction. Into the realm of proof, not truth or as Curt Doolittle said before, into the realm of mathematical operations, which is tautological by virtue. They called him a Nazi and proceeded to misinterpret and obfuscate his thoughts into the post-modern milieu. Am I off base here, or what?”— Gabriel Schmeiske Laport First: Congratulations, that’s very smart. And correct. “Mathiness” was a f–king curse we are still trying to get over. Just like christianity is a curse we are still trying to get over. Second: No. Heidegger and Hegel are not wrong in many of their assertions and observations (particularly hegel) they are just trying to solve the wrong problem by retaining german phenomenalism and retaining conflation of experience and existence. Heidegger tries to complete this project by reversing existence and experience. And thus heidegger brought the phenomenalist project to a dead end, just as frege kripke at all brought the anglo analytic project to a dead end. The problem is NOBODY UNDERSTANDS THEY WERE DEAD FUCKING ENDS… lol. The Ango model is superior for the aristocracy and upper middle class, it certainly appears that the Germans are optimum for pedagogy and the working classes. And it increasingly appears that the christians (italians basically) are optimum for the underclasses. And I cannot … (God damn. f—k!! Dammit!!!!!!) …find a way around this problem other than the traditional ‘teach them what you can and take them to their limits, with the law constraining each’. It’s obvious but I don’t want to admit it is the only solution.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550161259 Timestamp) —“No we don’t. There is no way to describe via current orthodoxy how you are experiencing typing on FB in a non-causal non-evolving domain called objective spacetime geometry.”— I can do so in existing language with sufficient precision that further increases in precision will not falsify such a statement (and have). And I know Searle can as well if not Dennett. And this was quite some time ago. I haven’t seen any significant improvement since ’05 in general description. We are simply trying to understand the underlying mechanics and new publications come out almost daily. —“There is no way to describe via current orthodoxy how you are experiencing typing on FB in a non-causal non-evolving domain called objective spacetime geometry.”— We share experiences all the time. It’s called language. All language is reducible to analogy experience – and has to be. The question is marginal indifference of those experiences since they are always constituted from memory, and while memories are marginally indifferent in composition they very greatly in construction. And that does not mean anything that can be spoken of is marginally different. Just the opposite. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to empathize, sympathize, cooperate, communicate, negotiate, plan, calculate, and compute by the same means. And we can. with just 300 words and time. The claim that language cannot be converted to geometry is patently false since I have been involved in doing so for over fifteen years now. We were limited until the current video cards, but we are still limited by board and data bandwidth although this is rapidly decreasing. (We could not obtain funding in the mid 2000’s when we proposed it. it was too early and tenuous but people obtain funding daily at present it’s the hot thing.) As far as I know consciousness proper (not sentience and imitation of consciousness) requires sufficient recursion which is somewhere in the distance due to cost (and possibly heat); the open question is whether it is possible to reason without language and grammar as a proxy for categories of experience. The required mathematical constructs are just manifolds and we are not the only people to have used them and proposed them, and agents to search them. In fact, the only difference between the current vertex based world modeling and what we call ‘meaning’ is extra dimensions. Because the only difference between the existential and experiential is the dimensions possible by our lovely homunculus we call a nervous system. Like I said. Phil is dead. It’s been relegated to ‘religion’ in library science and the university for this reason. And when I find a single argument that is not an attempt at deception I will have something to ‘understand’ that I do not now. One of our cognitive biases consist in the presumption that when we feel we don’t know something there is much more to be known (mathematics). The converse is that we have overconfidence in the completeness of what we know (economists, and dunning kruger). Working in computer science eliminates mathematical idealism. Working with databases eliminates a host of illusions about the complexity of reality as other than variations in language, and working in neural networks eliminates the illusion of ‘complexity’. Our imagination is a wonderful machine of free association and we love the daydreaming experience because it stimulates the reward system that seeks opportunities (the undiscovered valley). But it is just another recreational drug. And we love our self induced recreational drugs. And we are easily addicted to them. Religion and philosophy more so than literature and science.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550167736 Timestamp) —“CURT: WAS HEIDEGGER RIGHT ABOUT THE CURSE OF MATHINESS?”— —“While we’re on this. Wasn’t that one of Hiedegger’s points all along, too? Every philosopher after Plato and Aristotle, according to him, had gone in the wrong direction. Into the realm of proof, not truth or as Curt Doolittle said before, into the realm of mathematical operations, which is tautological by virtue. They called him a Nazi and proceeded to misinterpret and obfuscate his thoughts into the post-modern milieu. Am I off base here, or what?”— Gabriel Schmeiske Laport First: Congratulations, that’s very smart. And correct. “Mathiness” was a f–king curse we are still trying to get over. Just like christianity is a curse we are still trying to get over. Second: No. Heidegger and Hegel are not wrong in many of their assertions and observations (particularly hegel) they are just trying to solve the wrong problem by retaining german phenomenalism and retaining conflation of experience and existence. Heidegger tries to complete this project by reversing existence and experience. And thus heidegger brought the phenomenalist project to a dead end, just as frege kripke at all brought the anglo analytic project to a dead end. The problem is NOBODY UNDERSTANDS THEY WERE DEAD FUCKING ENDS… lol. The Ango model is superior for the aristocracy and upper middle class, it certainly appears that the Germans are optimum for pedagogy and the working classes. And it increasingly appears that the christians (italians basically) are optimum for the underclasses. And I cannot … (God damn. f—k!! Dammit!!!!!!) …find a way around this problem other than the traditional ‘teach them what you can and take them to their limits, with the law constraining each’. It’s obvious but I don’t want to admit it is the only solution.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550271669 Timestamp) SO IN CLOSING, RETURNING TO THE CENTRAL POINT: METAPHYSICS = SOPHISM OF PSEUDOSCIENCE Fictions can be used for the purpose of meaning when we cannot model the underlying complexity in mind. Fictions can also be used to deceive. —“Max Tegmark says that consciousness is a “new form of matter” Theoretical physics is basically just metaphysics. Everettian multiverse is basically metaphysics Bohmian mechanics is metaphysics because it has unknown variables in the math A-theory of time is metaphysics because it needs new physics such as the ether”— Yes these are metaphysical statements meaning that they are NONSENSE statements, precisely because there is no discipline of metaphysics, only that category of nonsense we call metaphysics. In other words, metaphysics is a name we use for a category of sophism we call pseudoscience. There is neither a discipline (grammar) of pseudoscience nor metaphysics, any more than there is a discipline (grammar) of ghost studies. It is just a name for sophisms of pseudoscience, idealism, and the occult.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550271669 Timestamp) SO IN CLOSING, RETURNING TO THE CENTRAL POINT: METAPHYSICS = SOPHISM OF PSEUDOSCIENCE Fictions can be used for the purpose of meaning when we cannot model the underlying complexity in mind. Fictions can also be used to deceive. —“Max Tegmark says that consciousness is a “new form of matter” Theoretical physics is basically just metaphysics. Everettian multiverse is basically metaphysics Bohmian mechanics is metaphysics because it has unknown variables in the math A-theory of time is metaphysics because it needs new physics such as the ether”— Yes these are metaphysical statements meaning that they are NONSENSE statements, precisely because there is no discipline of metaphysics, only that category of nonsense we call metaphysics. In other words, metaphysics is a name we use for a category of sophism we call pseudoscience. There is neither a discipline (grammar) of pseudoscience nor metaphysics, any more than there is a discipline (grammar) of ghost studies. It is just a name for sophisms of pseudoscience, idealism, and the occult.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550423126 Timestamp) CLOSING IN ON METAPHYSICS AS NON-EXISTENT, or simply cogn sci: demarcation between observable and experienceable. What is metaphysics other than either operational description(existential) or fiction(inexistential)? Why is M not just another scale of physics just as chemistry another scale of atomic states, and atomic states just another scale of particles, and particles just another scale of fundamental forces, and fundamental forces just another scale of information? Sentience and consiousness are just another scale of the physical world in operation. So just as space time is the result of underlying physical reactions, so are experience and consiousness. I am getting closer I think to understanding the confusion of those who claim it exists but I still have to agree with those who say it is handwaving. AFAIK. the human experience is just a continuation of physics, and all operations and experiences explicable in fairly simple terms the underlying mechanics of which only matter in producing aggregates. Metaphysics as far as I know, simply means the ontology(paradigms) of cognitive science at different levels of commensurable operations (scales), just as physics consists of ontologies(paradigms) at different levels of commensurable operations(scales), and I have seen nothing to alter that understanding (even in aristotle) that proposition other than attempts at sophism, pseudoscience, occult, and fraud. And I am absolutely positive that this will persist. My understanding of the reason is that different disciplines use incompatible (incommensurable) paradigms (ontologies) and as such people have to fictionalize relations between them. However, operatios (analogy to experience no matter how difficult to experience) serves as a universally commensurable system of measurement within and across all scales whether physical or cognitive (or linguistic) and as such M is not a discipline but simply cog sci, and all attempts to say otherwise are simply fictionalisms to compensate for incommensurability generating demand for fictions. In other words fictions produce conflation inflation and opportunity for inductive and deductive error from false premises (ontologies, paradigms), and simply serve as sources of ignorance, fraud, and deceit (Popper). Ergo, metaphysics consists simply an extension of physics in the same commensurable language of operations, and there are not multiple metaphysics, just ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit.. And I can’t find any alternative explanation. And I’m not at all unique in this understanding. (Van Frassen, McGinn, Thomassen cited in SEP). And the anti-positivist criticism does not hold against falsificationism/critical naturalism – only asks for commensurability across scales, to maintain coherence and parsimony in defense against error, bias, fiction and deceit. And I am still stuck with the non-anglo desire for empathy with ontologies (experiencing) rather than objectivity(describing). Is this purely cultural or are scandinavian(northern european) peoples genetically different in that we have greater distance (agency) between intuition and cognition. AFAIK every problem I have encountered that we call metaphysics is simply a grammatical error. In fact, I’m not sure philosophy exists of much other than grammatical errors (Malformed calculations). And this is because language is a system of measurement that is only as useful as grammatical demands (tolerances) allow. And that as a system of measurement the only deflationary and inflationary method of speech is operations. While certain philosophers have made this claim and have been attacked, these attacks occur under the fallacy of closure in the system of language itself. Which is a common sophomoric argument in philosophical discourse. The only closure is reality itself in toto.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550417124 Timestamp) NIETZSCHE’S ANTICHRIST by Rosenborg Predmesky (CD: This form say what a thing does rather than what rationalization is made. this is science.) To summarize an ethological and evolutionary exposition and vindication of Section 57 of Nietzsche’s “Antichrist”:

    1. Humans exist in a natural caste system of priest, warrior and worker.

    2. Modern leftism takes Christianity’s “moral or ontological equality of all men before God” and turns it into an actual equality of potential of all men, and the priestly socialists teach the workers to rebel against the warrior.

    3. Nietzsche concludes that he hates socialism and left-anarchism, and that these ideological forces arise from Christianity.

    It reminds me of how one certain tribe tends to mobilize less intelligent races against masters in revenge against them… https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19322-h/19322-h.htm

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550423126 Timestamp) CLOSING IN ON METAPHYSICS AS NON-EXISTENT, or simply cogn sci: demarcation between observable and experienceable. What is metaphysics other than either operational description(existential) or fiction(inexistential)? Why is M not just another scale of physics just as chemistry another scale of atomic states, and atomic states just another scale of particles, and particles just another scale of fundamental forces, and fundamental forces just another scale of information? Sentience and consiousness are just another scale of the physical world in operation. So just as space time is the result of underlying physical reactions, so are experience and consiousness. I am getting closer I think to understanding the confusion of those who claim it exists but I still have to agree with those who say it is handwaving. AFAIK. the human experience is just a continuation of physics, and all operations and experiences explicable in fairly simple terms the underlying mechanics of which only matter in producing aggregates. Metaphysics as far as I know, simply means the ontology(paradigms) of cognitive science at different levels of commensurable operations (scales), just as physics consists of ontologies(paradigms) at different levels of commensurable operations(scales), and I have seen nothing to alter that understanding (even in aristotle) that proposition other than attempts at sophism, pseudoscience, occult, and fraud. And I am absolutely positive that this will persist. My understanding of the reason is that different disciplines use incompatible (incommensurable) paradigms (ontologies) and as such people have to fictionalize relations between them. However, operatios (analogy to experience no matter how difficult to experience) serves as a universally commensurable system of measurement within and across all scales whether physical or cognitive (or linguistic) and as such M is not a discipline but simply cog sci, and all attempts to say otherwise are simply fictionalisms to compensate for incommensurability generating demand for fictions. In other words fictions produce conflation inflation and opportunity for inductive and deductive error from false premises (ontologies, paradigms), and simply serve as sources of ignorance, fraud, and deceit (Popper). Ergo, metaphysics consists simply an extension of physics in the same commensurable language of operations, and there are not multiple metaphysics, just ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit.. And I can’t find any alternative explanation. And I’m not at all unique in this understanding. (Van Frassen, McGinn, Thomassen cited in SEP). And the anti-positivist criticism does not hold against falsificationism/critical naturalism – only asks for commensurability across scales, to maintain coherence and parsimony in defense against error, bias, fiction and deceit. And I am still stuck with the non-anglo desire for empathy with ontologies (experiencing) rather than objectivity(describing). Is this purely cultural or are scandinavian(northern european) peoples genetically different in that we have greater distance (agency) between intuition and cognition. AFAIK every problem I have encountered that we call metaphysics is simply a grammatical error. In fact, I’m not sure philosophy exists of much other than grammatical errors (Malformed calculations). And this is because language is a system of measurement that is only as useful as grammatical demands (tolerances) allow. And that as a system of measurement the only deflationary and inflationary method of speech is operations. While certain philosophers have made this claim and have been attacked, these attacks occur under the fallacy of closure in the system of language itself. Which is a common sophomoric argument in philosophical discourse. The only closure is reality itself in toto.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550417124 Timestamp) NIETZSCHE’S ANTICHRIST by Rosenborg Predmesky (CD: This form say what a thing does rather than what rationalization is made. this is science.) To summarize an ethological and evolutionary exposition and vindication of Section 57 of Nietzsche’s “Antichrist”:

    1. Humans exist in a natural caste system of priest, warrior and worker.

    2. Modern leftism takes Christianity’s “moral or ontological equality of all men before God” and turns it into an actual equality of potential of all men, and the priestly socialists teach the workers to rebel against the warrior.

    3. Nietzsche concludes that he hates socialism and left-anarchism, and that these ideological forces arise from Christianity.

    It reminds me of how one certain tribe tends to mobilize less intelligent races against masters in revenge against them… https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19322-h/19322-h.htm

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550463973 Timestamp) WHICH KIND OF CHRISTIAN ARE YOU So the question is: 1 – Are you a scientific christian (science) 2 – Are you a normative christian (habit) 3 – Are you a philosophical christian (choice) 4 – Are you a supernatural christian (faith). I am a scientific christian.