–“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”–Charles Darwin
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 05:02:00 UTC
–“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”–Charles Darwin
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 05:02:00 UTC
(response to a ‘jesus message’)
I am not a follower of Jehova, Abraham, and Saul, but of Alexander, Aristotle, and Zeno, and Hume, Darwin, and Locke . My god says that Jehova is the Devil, Abraham is his prophet, and Paul and Muhammed are his disciples.
And the evidence tells me my god speaks the truth.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 21:26:00 UTC
POSTMODERNISM is a mid-to-late 20th century reactionary movement developed to retaliate against and undermine scientific and political modernity by the use of skepticism, irony, ridicule, shaming, or denial, including truth denial, reason denial, science denial, objective reality denial, human nature denial (race, civilization, culture, class, gender, ability, and intelligence denial), objective morality denial, the notion of social progress denial, the notion of evolutionary progress denial, and denial of gender, economic, social, and political compromise through cooperative exchange.
Instead, postmodernists assert – to varying degrees – that claims to knowledge and truth are products of social, historical or political discourses or interpretations, and are therefore contextual or socially constructed.
As such, postmodern thought is characterized by uses of denial, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, irreverence(ridicule,shaming, and rallying and self-referentiality(circular reasoning).
In other words postmodernism attempts to destroy all ‘discrimination and difference in value’ in political discourse through the ritualization of lying by pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and fictionalization of history, and fictionalization of communication in the modern world.
The technique functions in modernity just as Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) fictionalized, reason, truth, and history in the ancient world – through ritualized repetition of falsehood: deception by chanting.
Origins: The prior generations of marxism had failed in their pseudoscientific iterations, from marx, through lenin, stalin, trotsky, and through the french schools. But by the mid 20th century it was intellectually impossible to advocate marxism because of its universal failure and the catastrophes he had created. The french school switched from economic and pseudoscientific marxism of competition between the classes for economic power, to pseudo rational (fictional) competition between identities for pursue of ‘privilege’ and pure political power.
In both cases the scientific, rational, and philosophical refutation of marxism and postmodernism lagged the success of the marxists and postmodernists at the production of propaganda – thereby illustrating that the production of lies is faster and cheaper and more effective in the short term than the production of truth.
The strategy of postmodernists has been to immigrate third world parties, end integration into western civilization (the nuclear family, meritocracy, truth telling, rule of law, and civic responsibility), undermine rule of law via the courts through selective pursuit of marginal cases, accomplish legislation via the courts what cannot be accomplished through the established channels of government, and destroy the virtue of the family and norms, and replace it with the virtue of individualism and identitarianism (abnormal behavior).
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 18:46:00 UTC
Apparently ‘philosophy’ often means ‘literary pseudoscience’ or ‘moral fiction’.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 07:21:00 UTC
OK, What podcasters, and ‘radio sites’, websites, youtuber’s, tweeters, ‘personalities’ and authors are discussing the pseudo intellectual, the supernatural, pseudoscience, and who are tinfoil-hatter’s, borderline schizophrenic conspiracy theorists, and losers?
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 21:04:00 UTC
It doesn’t matter to me whether he existed or not. What matters is that exhaustion of direct opportunity for cooperation is *scientifically* the optimum cooperative strategy, and that by limiting it to direct action within the society where one possesses sufficient knowledge to claim he does good without harm caused by externality, is a sufficient method of eliminating virtue spirals and free riding.
It doesn’t matter to me whether achilles existed or not, it matters to me that the ordeal of the warrior (the necessity of tragedy) is ‘true’.
It doesn’t matter to me that Alexander was an unpleasant fellow or that Aristotle was wrong in his physics.
What matters is that (a) claims of wisdom and truth are not conflated, (b) claims of myth and history are not conflated (c) claims of good are in fact good and bad are in fact bad, (d) that every possible fictional statement be eliminated from every narrative including the pseudorational, pseudoscientific, and pseudomythical.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 14:07:00 UTC
MORE ON TRUTH: OBJECTIVE VS SCIENTIFIC
OBJECTIVE (Constructive/Justificationary) – Kantian Rationalism
– vs. –
SCIENTIFIC (Deflationary / Falsificationary) – Darwinian/Popperian Science
1) A justificationary argument would rely on claims of objectivity. (via-positiva)
2) A deflationary argument would rely on elimination of subjective information. (via-negativa)
3) We achieve Deflationary (~Objective) speech by removing all subjective content from our speech.
4) We remove all subjective content from our speech by
(a) fully expanding all sentences.
(b) translating those expanded sentences into fully operational language.
(c) Testing each dimension of perceivable reality for consistency (determinism)
…i) categorical consistency (identity)
…ii) internal consistency (logical)
…iii) external correspondence (empirical consistency)
…iv) existential consistency (operational language)
…v) rational consistency (rational choice of rational actor)
…vi) reciprocal consistency (rational choice of all participating actors)
…vii) scope consistency (limits of proposition, and full accounting of internal properties and external consequences.)
(d) Restating the sentence with surviving and failed tests of consistency as a test of coherence.
6) this process will, in ordinary language, provide tests of whether the speaker in fact understands what he speaks, and that his speech is correspondent, consistent, and coherent in all dimensions. Because it is, as far as I know, impossible to state a coherent and false statement and survive these tests, while at the same time claiming it is ‘truthful’ rather than theoretical, hypothetical, or a guess.
–“every claim we make”–
(a) It means that within the LIMITS we assume or propose it is possible to speak truthfully, even if in the ideal sense – unlimited, and ideal truth – we cannot speak ‘the truth’.
(b) All speech is theoretical but some theoretical speech is trivial (non contradictory, or with implied limits).
—“Brain in a vat”–
Rationalist error. since no logic of any dimension (identity, logic, empirical, operational, reciprocal) is sufficient for truth claims, only for tests of internal consistency, then all ordinary language tests must appeal to the next higher dimension (at least – if not all) in order to make truth claim (rather than a proof claim).
It is very common for rationalists used to justificationary statements, to conflate proof (internal consistency) with truthfulness (consistency, correspondence, and coherence), with True(ideal), and True(analytic).
So unless you know which ‘true’ you’re using, most rational arguments are just victorian word games.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 12:02:00 UTC
I can’t afford to give time and space to trolling, memes, occult, or pseudoscience. Sorry. Ride some other tails.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 17:22:00 UTC
WHY IS PHILOSOPHY EVEN AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE?
One could argue that philosophy treat its publications as does mathematics, with prohibiting publications of work by those still in the process of getting an education.
Although papers in mathematics are far less embarrassing than papers in philosophy, history, and literature. I mean, I have no idea what submissions look like to you, but every time I go through a stack of publications I’m horrified by the quality of the work. Until philosophy follows physics and psychology into the use of operational language – which is what I work on – the discipline will continue to produce thirty one flavors – permutations – of expression of the same concepts producing little more than alternative decorations of the same furniture.
I mean, what philosophy of any substance has been produced in the past decade? I am not sure that since Kripke, anyone has said anything of substance. And Even Kripke is better explained by Turing and Godel.)
I fact, the only meaningful work of philosophy that I know of was produced in psychology by Haidt, who connected political behavior to moral intuitions to evolutionary biology and brain structures.
And so, why would anyone study something other than cognitive science, experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, economics, the common law, and voting patterns – other than to continue a century of what appears to be malinvestment in pseudo-scientific fantasy moral literature?
I mean, isn’t your article’s argument nothing more than one of creating a narrow monopoly for the purpose of rent seeking? That’s basic economics.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 09:31:00 UTC
DIMENSIONS: CONSTANT RELATIONS
Physical vs Logical (pure) Constant Relations.
So think more of the various ‘polyhedrons’, where the number of dimensions equals the number of sides, and that each side relates to both it’s own sides and some other polyhedron’s sides.
So there is a difference between spatial relations (limited to 3/4d) physical relations (like the branches of a tree and its roots), and informational relations (like the internet nodes, or brain structures).
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 12:14:00 UTC