Theme: Science

  • LET ME MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU: LIES VS TRUTH Metaphysics = Postmodern = Relativism

    LET ME MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU: LIES VS TRUTH

    Metaphysics = Postmodern = Relativism = Undecidability = Lying.

    Science = Modernism = Consistency = Decidability = Truth.

    Philosophy is just another fictional literature. It uses ideals rather than supernaturals. Postmodernism is simply sophism. Marxism is simply pseudoscience. Western thought baits you into maintaining high trust at the expense of truth. Semitic thought baits you into moral hazard in order to undermine you and your people. It’s not complicated.

    It’s not an opinion. If you can’t speak in the language of TESTIMONY (science) then we have to investigate WHY you speak in an language OTHER than Testimony. And when we do so we will discover your fraud – intentional, or as the carrier (victim) of those smarter than you with intent do distribute fraud.

    Science (Testimony) consists of the universal language of truthful speech for a good reason: it survived in the market for replication, application, and survival.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-14 12:19:00 UTC

  • “No we don’t. There is no way to describe via current orthodoxy how you are expe

    —“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.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-14 11:20:00 UTC

  • “Hey Curt, a friend and I are going to read Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revo

    —“Hey Curt, a friend and I are going to read Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” soon. Do you recommend any other work that would expound the most up-to-date and rigorous philosophy of science? Cheers.”—

    The conversion of science from justification to falsification to to market competition, and unifying science and law, where science is but an extension and application of the law of tort, and the testimony required in laws of tort.

    Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery,

    Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions,

    Popper’s conjectures and refutations,

    …but first read:

    Hayek’s knowledge in society essay, and his

    Road to Serfdom

    … And if you can manage it:

    Elanor Ostrom (Commons)

    And Amartya Sen (philosophy and economy)

    … And then

    Hayek’s Law, Legislation, and Liberty if you want to take it all the way through to the end.

    Popper is talking about explicit knowledge and hayek about tacit knowledge. And we must possess both. Just as we must possess recipes (transformations/actions) and theories (search algorithms/opportunities). One to search for opportunities and one to exploit them.

    THe rest of the century is basically wasted with poorly articulated arguments attempting to state what is a fairly obvious problem.

    As far as I know my work is most current, and that is that there is no via-positiva scientific method (what to do) only a via-negativa scientific method (due diligence in that your testimony is truthful.) That we must perform due diligence in each of the applicable dimensions of possible human comprehension. And that science consists of the art of attempting to possess the information necessary to testify.

    And therefore that science then is a market for arguments.

    So:

    – Free Association > Hypothesis

    – Hypothesis > Theory

    – Theory > Law

    – Law > Habituation

    – Habituation > Metaphysical assumption.

    Cheers.

    -Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-13 10:07:00 UTC

  • RT @DegenRolf: “The new analysis reported here likewise found no significant eff

    RT @DegenRolf: “The new analysis reported here likewise found no significant effect of gun levels on total suicide rates.” https://t.co/2By…


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 17:30:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095374623456268289

  • RT @DegenRolf: Another literature review cancels the alarm state: “There is not

    RT @DegenRolf: Another literature review cancels the alarm state: “There is not a single well-founded study that proves a long-term effect…


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 17:28:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095374018109210625

  • RT @ValerioCapraro: Incredibly deep paper: – the replicability crisis in psychol

    RT @ValerioCapraro: Incredibly deep paper:
    – the replicability crisis in psychology is not only driven by methodological and statistical sh…


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 11:38:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095285979055865857

  • What if the reason we have not developed a framework, and why psychology cannot

    What if the reason we have not developed a framework, and why psychology cannot convert to a science, is because we may like what we find? I’ve been working on the problem as a byproduct of my work (method) and I think it’s relatively simple and solid. We just won’t like it.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 11:37:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095285872788946944

    Reply addressees: @ValerioCapraro

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095118262122303489


    IN REPLY TO:

    @ValerioCapraro

    Incredibly deep paper:
    – the replicability crisis in psychology is not only driven by methodological and statistical shortcomings
    – it’s mainly driven by a lack of theoretical frameworks
    – Psychology needs to be turned into a formal science
    https://t.co/ZuXE0Ix7yg https://t.co/uLVsMO5Uih

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1095118262122303489

  • ON THE REPLICATION CRISIS IN PSYCHOLOGY (PSEUDOSCIENCE) What if the reason we ha

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0522-1MORE ON THE REPLICATION CRISIS IN PSYCHOLOGY (PSEUDOSCIENCE)

    What if the reason we have not developed a framework, and why psychology cannot convert to a science, is because we may like what we find? I’ve been working on the problem as a byproduct of my work (method) and I think it’s relatively simple and solid. We just won’t like it.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0522-1

    ====

    by Valerio Caprario (via james santagata)

    Incredibly deep paper:

    – the replicability crisis in psychology is not only driven by methodological and statistical shortcomings

    – it’s mainly driven by a lack of theoretical frameworks

    – Psychology needs to be turned into a formal science

    Abstract (Gated)

    The replication crisis facing the psychological sciences is widely regarded as rooted in methodological or statistical shortcomings. We argue that a large part of the problem is the lack of a cumulative theoretical framework or frameworks. Without an overarching theoretical framework that generates hypotheses across diverse domains, empirical programs spawn and grow from personal intuitions and culturally biased folk theories. By providing ways to develop clear predictions, including through the use of formal modelling, theoretical frameworks set expectations that determine whether a new finding is confirmatory, nicely integrating with existing lines of research, or surprising, and therefore requiring further replication and scrutiny. Such frameworks also prioritize certain research foci, motivate the use diverse empirical approaches and, often, provide a natural means to integrate across the sciences. Thus, overarching theoretical frameworks pave the way toward a more general theory of human behaviour. We illustrate one such a theoretical framework: dual inheritance theory.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 06:41:00 UTC

  • THE METHOD TO THE APPEARANCE OF MADNESS (An Opus for the Newbies and Normies) 0)

    THE METHOD TO THE APPEARANCE OF MADNESS

    (An Opus for the Newbies and Normies)

    0) I work through the combination of aristotelian, logical, scientific, social scientific, pedagorical-religious, and cognitive-linguistic fields with a discipline that most cannot imagine. And at any time I’m attempting to solve a handful of problems. If the audience understands what problem I am solving it does not help me with their reactions so I tend to mix them up to prevent it.

    1) I ‘riff’ off arguments wherever i find them in order to create controversy in order to draw attention in order to educate those who are educable, and filter out those who are not.

    2) I never resist the opportunity for a fight for this reason: it is exceptional, relatively free advertising, that lets us search for people that have potential for contribution to the development of an intellectual movement sufficient to counter second era abrahamism: destruction of advanced civilizations by islamism, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism, and outright lying that baits the ignorant and foolish into moral hazard, and civilizational collapse.

    3) I teach by conducting a continuous the king of the hill game, which consists of making an argument or assertion which generates either defense of a prior assumption, offense against a presumption, or conflict between assumptions. This is how men must be taught. There is no penalty for failure except one’s learning. The only reward is attention, respect, quoting, and republication of good arguments. One does not need to be ‘right’ in this game, one needs only continuously strive to improve his abilities at discourse, debate, argument, and prosecution.

    4) The principle methods we teach are actually quite simple:

    (a) deflate, operationalize, disambiguate, serialize, define limits and completeness and express as a supply demand curve. This produces ‘better definitions, redefinitinos, and new definitions which are not possible to use in decet by the incomplete sentences, inflation, conflation, sophism, or the fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience.

    (b) All human behavior can be reduced to attempts to obtain, maintain, or defend expenditures of investment, whether physical, emotional, or intellectual. … As a consequence we can enumerate everything that humans attempt to acquire as some form of property. … As a consequence we can test whether attempts at obtaining property are reciprocal and if reciprocal within the limits of proportionality – thus maintaining the incentive to cooperate …. or they are not. if they are not then they are violations of reciprocity and proportionality, and as such simply ‘violence by other means’. Violence by any means, invites reciprocity by retaliation by violence by any means. Therefore the only reason for those who are able, to cooperate rather than exterminate, enslave, enserf, en-tax, or en-debt, is reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.

    (c) humans divide not only labor, but time-frame, perception, cognition, memory, paradigm, opportunities for predation and conditions of(fear of being) prey, demands, advocacy, negotiation, cooperation, rejection, conflict, and warfare.

    (d) there are a limited means of dividing that cognition and advocacy and those are primarily driven by gender differences in cognition and intuition, the bias of male or female brain structure and resulting behavior in the group, very minor differences in personality trait within the group (stages of the prey drive or reward system), the degree of neoteny in a group, and the success of the group in upward redistribution of reproduction thereby limiting the dead weight of the unproductive or costly.

    (e) Within groups there are only three means of persuasion i) force, ii)remuneration, iii) ostracization. These three strategies reflect the masculine conservative(defensive), ascendent male (opportunistic), and female(consumptive) biases in cognitive strategy. We see this in extreme conflict behavior between the genders as men fight only to preserve hierarchy then end the conflict. Ascendent men (libertarians) rarely fight but move to other opportunities. Females undermine by reputation destruction and do not stop until the enemy is destroyed. We also see this same effect in three personality type clusters. In other words all human groups cluster around three sets of personality types (big5/6) that reflect the masculine, libertarian, and feminine reproductive and social competitive strategy. This strategy is modified slightly by the sexual, social, economic, political, and military genetic, cultural, and knowledge value that the individual demonstrates by his display word and deed. and if we modify by the increasing adaptation provided by intelligence we see that there are a finite number of means by which individuals and groups compete. Therefore, all group strategies can be understood as genetic expression of group evolutionary demands.

    (f) Societies form elites in each of the means of coercion: i)force, government, and law, ii) finance, production, and trade, iii)education, gossip, propaganda, moralism, religion and these elites compete to make use of their strategy on behalf of their followers. They ally with one another. Traditionally religion and state. At the present it is religion and the middle class and the military (the middle) against the immigrants, minorities (non whites), underclasses (disenfranchised), and media, academy, state complex. In other words the new ‘religion’ of the academy and state is in competition with the old religion of the church, law, and people – it’s the top and bottom against the middle classes.

    (g) Since this new ‘religion’ is imposed upon our people by the same technique as the abrahamic religions (false promise, baiting into moral hazard, sophism, pilpul(excuse making), and critique (undermining), by a process of environmental overloading (informational saturation by repetition), that takes advantage of our genetic and cultural high trust (vulnerability to moral deception by moral hazard), and particularly because this is the natural intuition of the female biased mind out of evolutionary necessity, the increase in females in the work place, in voting, in consumption, and in particular in education in pseudosciences (social science and psychology and literature) which are simply vehicles for deceit by baiting the female mind into moral hazard, we can make use of the law to suppress falsehood, fraud, and high-fraud: baiting into moral hazard, in commerce, finance, economics, law, politics, and pedagogy (the academy), and let the natural competition between offenders and defenders incrementally suppress these frauds through the court system. and this will produce the most rapid change possible, and the costs of prosecution will, as in most things, drive the bad out of our society by negative market pressure (the law) alone, using natural self interest of even a minority of ordinary people.

    (h) It is quite possible using ‘testimonialism’ to define what is truthful speech (really, it is, surprisingly, and without that much difficulty) and teo extend the same involuntary (forced) warranty of due diligence against harm (falsehood, fraud, high fraud: baiting into moral hazard).

    (g) We have in the west relied on a unique, counter-intuitive human evolutionary strategy, evolved by our early military origins as charioteers, raiders, pirates, vikings, conquerors when we combined horse, wheel, bronze, language, and developed sky worshiping and paternalism as means of expressing our new found dominance over others and nature. However, this military order required personal investment by families in expensive equipment (arms, men) necessary to conduct raids and wars, and conquest. This order required putting TRUTH BEFORE FACE REGARDLESS OF COST TO THE HIERARCHY. Including the self. And it required relatively ‘democratic’ rights among those raiders (warriors, vikings, conquerors), who fought by choice not command. With the headman (chieftain) being the judge of last resort, and the people as the jury. As a result we produced heroism (risk) for the franchise (equality), and resulting sovereignty, reciprocity, common law, meaning the law of tort (property), and as a consequence, markets for voluntary cooperation in association, reproduction (marriage), production(economy), commons (‘society’), polity (government), and war (defense and offense), where war is another business venture like any other. And this tradition and this tradition alone – our sovereignty by earning it, our law, our militia, our jury, is all that separates us from the rest of the world that did not develop these traits. And the east asians were insulated from the barbarians by their territory, more so than we were by the Urals, black sea, caspian, bosphorus and mediterranean. So they not only had a longer time to develop, fewer genetically different neighbors, a larger population, and and the flood river alleys to feed themselves. They never developed truth over face, and because of that were not able to organize as fast and invent as fast as europeans in the ancient and modern worlds. The middle of the earth was destroyed by the semites over the past few thousand years, and their destruction and reduction of man to ignorance dysgenia, and poverty, is universal. They have destroyed and consumed the genetic, informational, normative, political, administrative, fixed, environmental capital of every great civilization of the ancient world reducing them to ashes of superstition. WHen rome discovered it must build a wall they did not choose the bosporus the caucuses, and the urals – and they should have. Because beyond there. nothing but Mordor waits. We are the people of science and law, the east are the people of reason and family, and the middle are the people of cancer upon the world that we must all defend against.

    (j) There are enemies among us that are not europeans and do not have our genetic and cultural dispositions, that exist (survive competition) ENTIRELY BY BAITING IN TO MORAL HAZARD and preying upon our people. We do not need to war against these people. Only outlaw their behavior in self defense. If we do so those people will have a choice of conforming, leaving, or prosecution and if necessary, execution. These people specialize in Advertising, Finance, Media, Entertainment, Propaganda, Activism, Law, Government, Prostitution, Gambling, Pornograpy, and white collar crime. And they do so by immigration, undermining, baiting into moral hazard, profiting from it, investing in the privatization of commons (rent seeking), and sponsoring further immigration, conversion, and destruction of all we have spent 4000 years developing.

    We can end the 2000 year war against our people very easily.

    A moral license (predation upon us, extermination of us)

    A set of demands (new constitution and policies)

    A plan of transition (how to reorganize peacefully)

    A means of altering the status quo. (uprising to delegitimize the state.)

    It is hard for people to argue with definancialization, de politicization, de propagandism, de population replacement, and the total criminalization of lying, fraud, and high fraud against our people in matters commercial, financial, political, economic, and military.

    We must choose. At least. The answer is about two million of us must choose. And we must choose to pay the price of defense of our people from the current attacks on our civilization.

    We can easily win.

    It’s just a choice.

    5) I am, we are, creating a movement the size and scope of marxism and postmodernism precisely to counter the use of semitic abrahamism version two, against our people in the forms of the great deceits of baiting into moral hazard: boazianism, freudianism, marxism, socialism, keynesianism, postmodernism, denialism, and outright lying; the destruction of our rule of law, of our constitution of natural law, and our civilization nearly devoid of burdensome underclasses that must of necessity parasitically depend upon us just as the utility of unskilled labor, skilled labor, clerks, craftsmen, are being eliminated from the economic pool. I’m searching for the members of our equivalent of the ‘frankfurt school’ – the development of our arguments of Restoration.

    All I care about from the Libertarians, Traditionalists, Constitutionalists , and Religious, is to i) not impede our work ii) be willing if the time comes to raise the few million we need to bring this entire country to a halt in short order, such that once published, our demands are met without bloodshed. ii) BEcause while you don’t understand, and I do, the ability to starve tens of millions of our enemies and turn their island cities to ruin is about as difficult as having a sandwich and beer.

    Thanks for your time and attention.The gods, all of them, are with us. Because only a devil would leave behind so many dead gods, and so many dead people, a genetic wasteland, and the attempted reversal of human history back into the stone ages.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (and really…now we are everywhere)

    Please start a group in your area. Winning is easy once you know how to win and what to do once you’ve won.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-11 15:50:00 UTC

  • Conservatism is not an intellectual movement. It is a pre rational, sentimental

    Conservatism is not an intellectual movement. It is a pre rational, sentimental and traditional one. AND I WILL CHANGE THAT FOREVER. The logic, science, and history of our people in rational prose.

    (worth repeating)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 19:06:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094673924166537216