Theme: Truth

  • Yes we are smart. Yes we are creative. But what makes us different is that we ar

    Yes we are smart. Yes we are creative. But what makes us different is that we are trustworthy. We are trustworthy either by nature(genetics) or training or both. It is increasingly obvious that it is BOTH. This is why other peoples cannot duplicate the western model. Our trust is a high tax. No other people will pay this tax other than perhaps the Japanese. Why: homogeneity.

    Once you figure it out you realize how much lying is going on under cosmopolitanism. Once we end financial parasitism our ability to exercise our creativity and intelligence and trust will multiply once again. Once we eliminate centralization of the state, our creativity and intelligence will multiply once again.

    Once we are no longer preyed upon our numbers will increase and we will multiply again.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 06:37:00 UTC

  • by Joel Davis I have been thinking about testimonialism a lot and I have come to

    by Joel Davis

    I have been thinking about testimonialism a lot and I have come to the conclusion that testimonialism is less about “the truth” than it is about humility (and if it isn’t, it should be).

    Testimony functions by subdividing experiential contexts into conceptual components via the commensurable definition of relative variance, and/or uniting conceptual components into experiential contexts via the commensurable definition of relative convergence, to enable and expand (in the case of testimony) the commensurable conceptualization of experiential contexts between communicators.

    Non-testimony functions by misrepresenting a concept as a component of an experiential context it did not derive from by either:

    – Defining the relative variance/convergence between concepts incommensurably. (Operational non-correspondence)

    or

    – Expanding the definition of the experiential context beyond commensurable relativity between its components. (Operational incoherence)

    I can break this down into normiespeak..

    Rather than telling me “what is”, tell me how it seems, because no matter “what is”, you can only ever perceive how it seems, as to find out that what it really “is” is different to how it seems, seems really only for it to now seem different.

    Therefore to believe that how it seems is how it is, seems rather arrogant to me.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 03:41:00 UTC

  • THE MIND OF A POSTMODERNIST – THE ART OF DECEIT. The reason I don’t ban Zachary

    THE MIND OF A POSTMODERNIST – THE ART OF DECEIT.

    The reason I don’t ban Zachary Davidson is because he is exceptional at the use of an extensive vocabulary for the purpose of obscuring his technique, which is the postmodern denial of truth.

    Abrahamism is the most creative vector for lying ever created but the technique is quite simple: suggestion by straw men, ridicule, criticism, and overloading.

    The fact that he uses the via negativa of skepticism suggesting that all truth is impossible, and therefore only scripture (authority) or preference (regardless of consequence) is just the inverse of the promise of salvation.

    Just as marxism inverted the promise of life after death and a second coming. Just as postmodernism inverted the class warfare into an identity warfare.

    So once you understand the technique it’s a bit like understanding literary analysis and losing your ability to enjoy fiction.

    Or in most people’s cases, understanding science, and losing your ability to enjoy religion.

    Or in my case, understanding the dimensions of reality and the various logics we have invented for testing each of them (and losing your ability to enjoy philosophy.

    Postmodernism is just the most recent generation of the technique of lying we call Abrahamism.

    Whereas Political Correctness is just outright denial and outright lying but repetitive chanting.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 16:48:00 UTC

  • Follow me a bit longer. Because in my proposition, the primary new cost is truth

    Follow me a bit longer. Because in my proposition, the primary new cost is truth. The primary new benefit is dramatic reduction in parasitism upon you and work you must provide. And there is nothing obtained by redistribution that is not paid for. And the payment for non contribution is merely non reproduction – not suffering.

    (worth expanding and repeating)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 12:21:00 UTC

  • I think Zachary Davidson is objecting to my PROCESS, which consists of iterative

    I think Zachary Davidson is objecting to my PROCESS, which consists of iterative attempts to construct proofs of existential possibility or impossibility, and to attract criticism, and to repeat, until by using a competition between the proofs of possibility and impossibility, and criticism, only the possible (truth candidates remain). And that’s just how science works through iterative exploration.

    Because all he is criticizing is my use of contrasts and measurements to quash ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit.

    And he is criticizing that effort in order to preserve the utility of lying on the one hand and the use of lie and ritual to produce chemical reward, and the addiction behavior that is produced by self deception, and then avoidance of the combination of un-anchoring, cost of abandoning intuition (the animal), relief from the burden of reason, relief from the burden of learning, relief from the burden of adaptation, relief from the burden of constant reorganization of cooperation.

    I mean. He works hard to preserve the lie and the feeling of success he gets from the lie, in contrast to his competitive success in reality. In other words, he wants to find escape from evidence of his reproductive disutility, and reward for it. He wants to make a failing a virtue.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 12:17:00 UTC

  • WHY DO YOU RESIST TRUTHFULNESS IN THE COMMONS? In other words, why you want room

    WHY DO YOU RESIST TRUTHFULNESS IN THE COMMONS?

    In other words, why you want room to load frame, suggest, obscure, fictionalize and deceive? There is a difference between false, useful, preferable, good, and true. I only worry about false, criminal, unethical, and immoral. The market can choose whatever it wants as long as it is not false (including criminal, unethical, and immoral.) So literature and myth are different from fictionalism.

    Fictionalism (religion, idealism, pseudoscience, deception) lies.

    Myth and literature advise.

    Science and law decide.

    There is no place for justifying the conflation of the competition between advice and decidability into the monopoly authority and faith.

    It’s just lying. Plain and simple.

    And the consequences for jews, christians, and muslims have been tragic and the consequences for the world because of jews, christians, and muslims has been tragic.

    So what excuse do you make for THE PRESERVATION OF EVIL?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 12:02:00 UTC

  • “You’re saying all mathematical statements are true or false but the liar parado

    —“You’re saying all mathematical statements are true or false but the liar paradox is one example of an ordinary language sentence which hasn’t got a truth-value, right? Well, stated that way, I’d say you’re right about all of that, but are you also saying that the liar sentence expresses a proposition? That might be the part where it starts to get problematic.”—

    Good question.

    In short, we can ask a question, or we can assert an opinion, conflate the two, or we can speak nonsense. And only humans (so far) can ask, assert, conflate, and fail at all of them. But out of convenience, we subtract from the real to produce the ideal, and speak of the speech as if it can act on its own.

    Just to illustrate that the test we are performing (context) limits both what we are saying and what we can say. From the most decidable to the least:

    1 – The mathematical category of statements, (tautological) single category. (relative measure)

    2 – The ideal category of statements, (logical) multiple categories. (relative meaning)

    3 – The operational category of statements (existential possibility)

    (sequential possibility )

    4 – The correspondent (empirical) category of statements. all categories. ( full correspondence )

    5 – The rational category of statements ( an actor making rational choices) (‘praxeological’)

    6 – The ‘moral’ category of statements ( test of reciprocity)

    7 – The fully accounted category of statements (tests of scope)

    8 – The valued (loaded) category of statements. (full correspondence and loaded with subjective value)

    9 – The deceptive category of statements (suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and outright lying.

    We can speak a statement in any one or more of these (cumulative) contexts.

    So for example, statements are not true or false or unknowable, but the people who speak them speak truthfully, falsely, or undecidedly. So performatively (as you have mentioned) only people can make statements.

    However, to make our lives easier, we eliminate unnecessary dimensions of existence unused in our scope of inquiry, and we conflate terms across those dimensions of existence, and we very often don’t even understand ourselves what we are saying. (ie; a number consists of a function for producing a positional name, from an ordered series of symbols in some set of dimensions. Or, only people can act and therefore only people can assert, and therefore no assertions are true or false, the person speaking speaks truth or falsehood. etc.)

    This matters primarily because no dimensional subset in logic closed without appeal to the consequence dimensional subset. In other words, only reality provides full means of decidability.

    Or translated differently, there just as there is little action value in game theory and little action value in more than single regression analysis, there is little value after first order logic, since decidability is provided by appeal to additional information in additional dimensions rather than its own. Which is, as far as I know, the principal lesson of analytic philosophy and the study of logic, of the 20th century.

    Or as I might restate it, we regress into deeper idealism through methodological specialization than is empirically demonstrable in value returned. Then we export these ‘ideals’ as pseudosciences to the rest of the population. This leading to wonderful consequences like the copenhagen consensus. Or the many worlds hypothesis, or String Theory. Or keynesian economics. Or the (exceedingly frustrating) nonsense the public seems to fascinate over as a substitute for numerology, astrology, magic, and the rigorous hard work required

    FOUNDATIONS OF LOGIC

    The foundations of logic like those of mathematics are terribly simple as subsets of reality. But by doubling down in the 19th and 20th centuries all we have found is that we say rather nonsensical terms like ‘the axiom of choice’ or ‘limits’ rather than ‘undecidable without appeal to information provided by existential context’. After all, math is just the discipline of scale independent measurement, and the deduction that is possible given the precision of constant relations using identical unitary measures. Logic is nothing more than than set operations. Algorithms are nothing more than sequential operations restoring time. Operations are nothing more than algorithms restoring physical transformation, time and cost. etc.

    As a consequence, I find most of this kind of terminological discourse … silly hermeneutics. As Poincare stated ‘that isn’t math its philosophy’. Or as I would say, ‘with platonism we depart science and join theology. It may be secular theology in that it is ideal rather than supernatural, but it is theology none the less’.

    it is one thing to say ‘by convention in math (or logic or whatever dimension we speak of) we use this colloquialism (half truth) as a matter of convenience. It is not ‘true’ as in scientifically true. It is just the best approximation given the brevity we exercise in simplifying our work.

    There exists only one possible ‘True’: the most parsimonious and correspondent testimony one can speak in the available language in the given context. Everything else is a convention.

    Ergo, if you do not know the operational construction of the terms that you use, you do not know of what you speak. That does not mean you cannot speak truth any more than monkey cannot accidentally type one of the Sonnets.

    This is why the operationalist movement in math we call Intuitionism failed.

    Anyway. Well formed (grammatically correct) statements in math may or may not be decidable but our intention is to produce decidable statements. In symbolic logic, well formed (grammatically correct) statements may or may not be decidable. in logic (language), well formed (grammatically correct) statements are difficult to construct because of the categorical difference between constant relations (ideals in math), constant categories (ideals in formal logic), and inconstant categories (ordinary language). Furthermore the process of DEDUCTION using premises (or logical summation) limits us to utility of true statements. Ergo for that purpose statements can only evaluate to true or not-true (including false and undecidable). While for the purpose of INDUCTION (transfer of meaning by seeding free association, or the construction of possibility by the same means) seeks only possibility or impossibility not truth or falsehood.

    Now. I have written far too much already, so I won’t try to increase the precision of what I’ve written, but hopefully the answer is the same:

    How can you claim to make a truth proposition and demand precise language when your premises are mere demonstrably falsehoods used by convention?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 10:58:00 UTC

  • ARGUMENTS WITH THE SOPHOMORIC FAITHFUL Ok. So, again. WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM. Yo

    ARGUMENTS WITH THE SOPHOMORIC FAITHFUL

    Ok. So, again. WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM. You have none, right?

    HERE IS A SIMPLE PASSAGE WITH CLEAR ARGUMENT. WHAT IS FALSE?

    One can experience the feelings of love, friendship, passion, touch color, smell, fear, and a host of combinations. One can experience drugs, theatre, and music. And one an remember those experiences, and one can empathize with those experiences in others.

    One can understand the causes of those experiences independent of their experiences, just as one can ‘feel’ the experiences independent of an understanding of the causes.

    It is true that an understanding of causes limits the range of experiences. It is true that the value of experiences limits the conclusions we draw from the causes. But it is the competition between experience and causality, like the competition between imagination and reason, like the competition between literature and history, like the competition between reason and science, that prevents our development of addiction behavior and zealotry to defend it, and scientistic behavior and zealotry to defend it. And the method of decidability we can use for both limits is ‘truth’.

    For this reason we can separate good ‘religions’ from evil ‘religions’. And that line of demarcation is simple: (a) imagination rather than action, (b) deflation (competition) vs monopoly: fictionalism (conflation) rather than competition between true and wise, and advise and command, and history and myth. We can ‘rank’ better religions and worse religions by the same means.

    And so it is profoundly clarifying, to both Know and Feel, such that we form a competition between knowing and feeling, if for no other reason than to prevent of harm. And specifically, to prevent the harm of the abrahamic deceits, which succeed by self induced drug addictions through the ritualistic production of endorphins.

    (The answer is, it’s all true)

    Try to construct an argument. Because all you’re doing is proving my assertion that you can’t.

    You are just a liar by obscurantist means.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 14:53:00 UTC

  • VERY CLOSE TO THE FINAL WORD ON THE LIMITS OF RELIGION AND THE COMPETITION BETWE

    VERY CLOSE TO THE FINAL WORD ON THE LIMITS OF RELIGION AND THE COMPETITION BETWEEN FEELS AND REALZ.

    The word “anthropomorphization” is an enlightenment term from the 1700’s that refers to the human psychological tendency to attribute human properties to non-human characters for the purpose of substituting human intent when causality is beyond the grasp of the speaker – or as a literary device to communicate general psychological intuitions through non-human characters through conflation with animal behaviors or extraordinary circumstances.

    This term was chosen to refer to the general tendency of humans to produce fantasy stories for use as wisdom literature in the absence of a literature of causation (science) throughout history. This fantasy wisdom literature is easily explainable as the product of evolutionary chance, human reason’s need for causal explanation (‘fear of vacuum’), and human imagination’s ability to perform substitution (permutation).

    Moreover, appealing to intuition requires little or no burden-of-reason, and the repeating narrative is the lowest cost means of training intuition available to human beings, and is available from childhood onward. Even better, narratives that train inexpensive and powerful intuition which can then serve as a substitute for expensive and error-prone reason that survive generations of application cause behaviors whose consequences are correspondent to complex reality despite the fact that it’s causes are non-correspodent to reality, thereby reducing the error of the individual and the group regardless of their individual abilities to reason. Unfortunately the cost of adaptation of such narrative knowledge, reinforced by networks of related and interdependent narratives, is extremely high in relation to the rate of change. So intuitionistic programming by such narratives declines in value with the rate of change in knowledge and circumstance. And many peoples have been degraded, defeated, or exterminated because they were unable to adapt to changes due to confrontation with Guns, Germs, Steel, accounting, literacy, contract, law, banking, mathematics, logic, history, and Science.

    The operationally descriptive term anthropomorphization accurately describes the deflation of the technique by which we produce imaginary experiences, the sedative and euphoric chemical rewards of those imaginary experiences that invoke our submission to the pack response, the frequency with which those chemical rewards are available due to the low cost of chemical rewards for imaginary experiences, the sedative and euphoric effect of those chemical rewards, and the value in social phenomenon of associating sedative and euphoric effects with otherwise stressful persistent problems of minds capable of reason in complex problems our reason cannot solve and therefore bring to rest.

    Furthermore, we are all conscious of our status, whether reproductive value, social value, economic(productie) value, and political value. To the point where the combination of neuroticism (worry), status value, and agency(ability to act to change state), in concert with our ability to temporarily fool (sedate, stimulate) ourselves through imaginary self-narration, can drive us to destructive behaviors as we desperately seek to preserve the sedative and euphoric values of these (false) narratives in the face of evidence to the contrary.

    The experiences provided by fantasy fiction wisdom literature, its use in training intuition as a discount on cost of reason, it’s use in sedation and euphoria as stress reduction, and the discount provided by non-rational, intertemporally tested, methods of decidability, and the value of such decidability in coordinating social groups of widely distributed ages, and widely distributed intellectual abilities, with widely distributed personality traits, and widely distributed circumstances, was the reason for its widespread success in increasing the number of people coordinating their actions by the same criterial, even if the consequences were maladaptive to the point where these networks due to their stability and interconnection were highly resistant to new knowledge, and in many cases outright forbid new knowledge leading to poverty conquest and extermination.

    One can experience the feelings of love, friendship, passion, touch color, smell, fear, and a host of combinations. One can experience drugs, theatre, mu And one an remember those experiences, and one can empathize with those experiences in others.

    One can understand the causes of those experiences independent of their experiences, just as one can ‘feel’ the experiences independent of an understanding of the causes.

    It is true that an understanding of causes limits the range of experiences. It is true that the value of experiences limits the conclusions we draw from the causes. But it is the competition between experience and causality, like the competition between imagination and reason, like the competition between literature and history, like the competition between reason and science, that prevents our development of addiction behavior and zealotry to defend it, and scientistic behavior and zealotry to defend it. And the method of decidability we can use for both limits is ‘truth’.

    For this reason we can separate good ‘religions’ from evil ‘religions’. And that line of demarcation is simple: (a) imagination rather than action, (b) deflation (competition) vs monopoly: fictionalism (conflation) rather than competition between true and wise, and advise and command, and history and myth. We can ‘rank’ better religions and worse religions by the same means.

    And so it is profoundly clarifying, to both know and Feel, such that we form a competition between knowing and feeling, if for no other reason than to prevent of harm. And specifically, to prevent the harm of the abrahamic deceits, which succeed by self induced drug addictions through the ritualistic production of endorphins.

    So there is a vast difference between between a monopoly of reason which burdens the less able and empowers the able, and a monopoly of feelings which empower the less able, and burden the able – and the whole civilization.

    The compromise position – the compatible position – between reason and feeling, is that of the use of action rituals, and public rituals, and public festivals, to provide the beneficial returns of mindfulness, the social returns of trust and calculability, and the political benefits of organizing a polity by the same strategy, traditions, norms, and laws.

    This is very close the the final word on limits of religion.

    (Now, you might or might notice that I restated your criticism on a point by point and nearly paragraph by paragraph basis. or you might not. But it will be very difficult to defeat this analysis. )


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 12:05:00 UTC

  • ( I work in public for a reason. There is no value in working in public other th

    ( I work in public for a reason. There is no value in working in public other than to attract good criticism – and trying to falsify it, defend against it, adapt to it, or include it. The problem is, that there is very little good criticism. And there are a lot of people passionate about delivering bad stupid or ridiculous attempts at criticism.)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 09:26:00 UTC