You know, the hero’s journey is an epistemic one. Prior state of ignorance, Encountering Episode of Change, Testing the new Information, integrating it, and applying it, so that one is more powerful at the end than he was in the beginning.
Theme: Truth
-
The Hero’s Journey Is An Epistemic One
You know, the hero’s journey is an epistemic one. Prior state of ignorance, Encountering Episode of Change, Testing the new Information, integrating it, and applying it, so that one is more powerful at the end than he was in the beginning.
-
The End of Justificationary APriorism vs Critical Empiricism
THE END OF APRIORISM VS EMPIRICISM (read it and weep) 😉 PROPOSITIONS 1) All domesticatable animals are domesticatable for five reasons. All undomesticatable animals are undomesticatable for any one of them. 2) All human personalities are highly functional for five or six reasons. All dysfunctional families are dysfunctional for any one of those six reasons. 3) All happy families are happy for the same five or six reasons. All unhappy families are unhappy any one of those five or six reasons. 4) All TRUE statements are true because of consistency in six dimensions. All FALSE statements are false because of inconsistency in any ONE of those six dimensions. 5) All analytically true (mathematically true) statements correspondingly model reality because of consistency of correspondence of six dimensions. All analytically false statements are false because they fail to correspond to reality in any one of those six dimensions. 6) Existential(actionable) reality is composed of only so many ACTIONABLE dimensions, followed by only so many CAUSALLY RELATABLE dimensions. 7) The ‘True Name’ (Most Parsimonious Truth) of any phenomenon (set of consistent relations at some scale of actionable utility), can be described by the number, scope, limits, relations, relative change, and ACTIONABLE change, of those dimensions. THEREFORE 1) There exist fundamental laws of existentially possible action and comprehension in the existing universe as it is constructed (and likely must be constructed). 2) These laws can be described theoretically until known, and by analogy, axiomatically once they ARE known. By convention (by honesty and truthfulness) we distinguish between declarative axiomatic systems (analytic), and existential theoretic (existing) systems in order to NOT claim that axiomatic and declarative, and theoretical(laws), are equal in empirical content. They are not. To do so is to conduct either an analogy for the purpose of communication, or an error of understanding, or a fraud for the purpose of deception. We can determine whether ignorance, error, or deception by analysis of the speaker’s argument(error or ignorance) and incentives (fraud), including unconscious fraud (justification). 3) We can theorize from observation and imagination, to understanding (top down) or from understanding to imagination and observation (bottom up). But unless we can both construct (operationally and therefore existentially) as well as observe (empirically, and therefore existential) then we cannot say we possess the knowledge to make a truth claim about a theoretic system or an axiomatic system – although we must keep in mind that axiomatic systems are ‘complete and tautological’ and theoretic statements ‘incomplete and descriptive’. 4) To warranty against falsehood of any Statement, we must perform due diligence upon our free associations, ensuring that we have established consistent limits(invariant descriptions) for each of the dimensions: i) categorical consistency (identity consistency) ii) logical consistency (internal consistency) iii) empirical consistency (external correspondence) iv) existential consistency (operational correspondence) v) moral consistency (voluntarily reciprocal) vi) Scope, Limits and Parsimony (scope consistency) 5) The empirical measurement that Taleb, artificial intelligence researchers, and myself are seeking is how to quantify the information necessary for the human mind to form a free association (a pattern). This unit, if discovered, will be analogous to calories of heat, as the basic unit of state change in information. My theory is that this number, as Taleb has suggested is extremely large (logarithmically so) which accounts for the rarity of intelligence: the amount of memory, and the evolutionary and biological cost of memory, necessary to form even basic relations (free associations) appears to be extraordinarily high. THEREFORE 1) Mises epistemology is false. MIses, Popper, Hayek, Bridgman, Brouwer all had a piece of the problem but they all failed to synthesize their findings into a complete reformation of the scientific method (the method of stating truthful propositions. – economics is a scientific, not logical discipline. – the categories mises uses to determine human action are insufficient (and constructed in my opinion as a justificationary fraud just as is Jewish law – which is my interpretation – only causal axis I can find – of why he failed.) WHAT DID MISES ERR REGARDING? 1) Apriorism is but a special case of Empiricism, just as Prime Numbers are a special case in mathematics, and just as is any set of operations that returns a natural number; and again, is a special case, just as contradiction is a special case in logic.The laws of triangles form a particularly useful set of special cases. (But we must understand that it is because they possess the minimum dimensions necessary for spatial descriptions,) Note: The human mind evolved to prey upon other creatures. Unlike frogs and cockroaches that just seek the closest dark spot, humans must prey. To prey we must anticipate velocity in time. This is why we can chase something, and we can throw rocks, spears, and arrows at moving things. And why we and canines can model the destination of a thrown or fallen object. But we also evolved the ability to choose. To model one set of conditions and compare it to another set of conditions. And to model the conditions of OTHERS (intentions), and to compare it to other conditions. So this is why we can hold about five things in mind at once before resorting to breaking a ‘vision’ into patterns. (I have elaborated on each of the dimensions elsewhere). 2) Few (possibly no non-tautological, or at least non-reductio) aprioristic statements survive scope consistency (I can find none in economics that are actionable). 3) We can establish free associations(hypotheses) empirically (top down) or constructively (bottom up). But the method of discovery places no truth constraint on the statement. All must survive the full test of dimensions. 4) This does NOT mean that we cannot use a ‘partial truth’ (an hypothesis that does not survive all six dimensions) to search for further associations (partial search criteria). It is this UTILITY IN SEARCHING that we have converted first into reason, second into rationalism, third into empiricism, fourth in to operationalism, and fifth into scope consistency, and sixth into ‘natural law’ or morality or ‘voluntary cooperation’ – volition which is necessary to ensure the information quality in small groups, just as norms and laws are necessary methods of establishing limits in larger groups, just as money is necessary for producing actionable information in very large groups. 5) there is but one epistemological method: accumulate information, identify pattern, search for hypothesis, criticize hypothesis to produce a theory, distribute the theory (speak), let others criticize the theory until it fails, or we create a conceptual norm of it (law), and finally until we habituate it entirely (metaphysical judgment). 6) There is nothing special about physical science other than philosophy was free of COST constraints but held by moral constraints, and science was free of MORAL constraints as well as cost constraints, and judicial law was bound by both. So by these three disciplines: the imaginary and mental, the cooperative and existential, and the physical – we managed to slowly assemble a sufficient understanding of truth in each of those disciplines, that together we can establish tests for ANY PROPOSITION in ANY DISCIPLINE: Mental, Cooperative, and PHYSICAL by the due diligence of consistency in the dimensions that apply to that instance. i) Categorical and Logical (mental) ii) Operational and Existential (physical) iii) Morality and Scope (cooperative) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The End of Justificationary APriorism vs Critical Empiricism
THE END OF APRIORISM VS EMPIRICISM (read it and weep) 😉 PROPOSITIONS 1) All domesticatable animals are domesticatable for five reasons. All undomesticatable animals are undomesticatable for any one of them. 2) All human personalities are highly functional for five or six reasons. All dysfunctional families are dysfunctional for any one of those six reasons. 3) All happy families are happy for the same five or six reasons. All unhappy families are unhappy any one of those five or six reasons. 4) All TRUE statements are true because of consistency in six dimensions. All FALSE statements are false because of inconsistency in any ONE of those six dimensions. 5) All analytically true (mathematically true) statements correspondingly model reality because of consistency of correspondence of six dimensions. All analytically false statements are false because they fail to correspond to reality in any one of those six dimensions. 6) Existential(actionable) reality is composed of only so many ACTIONABLE dimensions, followed by only so many CAUSALLY RELATABLE dimensions. 7) The ‘True Name’ (Most Parsimonious Truth) of any phenomenon (set of consistent relations at some scale of actionable utility), can be described by the number, scope, limits, relations, relative change, and ACTIONABLE change, of those dimensions. THEREFORE 1) There exist fundamental laws of existentially possible action and comprehension in the existing universe as it is constructed (and likely must be constructed). 2) These laws can be described theoretically until known, and by analogy, axiomatically once they ARE known. By convention (by honesty and truthfulness) we distinguish between declarative axiomatic systems (analytic), and existential theoretic (existing) systems in order to NOT claim that axiomatic and declarative, and theoretical(laws), are equal in empirical content. They are not. To do so is to conduct either an analogy for the purpose of communication, or an error of understanding, or a fraud for the purpose of deception. We can determine whether ignorance, error, or deception by analysis of the speaker’s argument(error or ignorance) and incentives (fraud), including unconscious fraud (justification). 3) We can theorize from observation and imagination, to understanding (top down) or from understanding to imagination and observation (bottom up). But unless we can both construct (operationally and therefore existentially) as well as observe (empirically, and therefore existential) then we cannot say we possess the knowledge to make a truth claim about a theoretic system or an axiomatic system – although we must keep in mind that axiomatic systems are ‘complete and tautological’ and theoretic statements ‘incomplete and descriptive’. 4) To warranty against falsehood of any Statement, we must perform due diligence upon our free associations, ensuring that we have established consistent limits(invariant descriptions) for each of the dimensions: i) categorical consistency (identity consistency) ii) logical consistency (internal consistency) iii) empirical consistency (external correspondence) iv) existential consistency (operational correspondence) v) moral consistency (voluntarily reciprocal) vi) Scope, Limits and Parsimony (scope consistency) 5) The empirical measurement that Taleb, artificial intelligence researchers, and myself are seeking is how to quantify the information necessary for the human mind to form a free association (a pattern). This unit, if discovered, will be analogous to calories of heat, as the basic unit of state change in information. My theory is that this number, as Taleb has suggested is extremely large (logarithmically so) which accounts for the rarity of intelligence: the amount of memory, and the evolutionary and biological cost of memory, necessary to form even basic relations (free associations) appears to be extraordinarily high. THEREFORE 1) Mises epistemology is false. MIses, Popper, Hayek, Bridgman, Brouwer all had a piece of the problem but they all failed to synthesize their findings into a complete reformation of the scientific method (the method of stating truthful propositions. – economics is a scientific, not logical discipline. – the categories mises uses to determine human action are insufficient (and constructed in my opinion as a justificationary fraud just as is Jewish law – which is my interpretation – only causal axis I can find – of why he failed.) WHAT DID MISES ERR REGARDING? 1) Apriorism is but a special case of Empiricism, just as Prime Numbers are a special case in mathematics, and just as is any set of operations that returns a natural number; and again, is a special case, just as contradiction is a special case in logic.The laws of triangles form a particularly useful set of special cases. (But we must understand that it is because they possess the minimum dimensions necessary for spatial descriptions,) Note: The human mind evolved to prey upon other creatures. Unlike frogs and cockroaches that just seek the closest dark spot, humans must prey. To prey we must anticipate velocity in time. This is why we can chase something, and we can throw rocks, spears, and arrows at moving things. And why we and canines can model the destination of a thrown or fallen object. But we also evolved the ability to choose. To model one set of conditions and compare it to another set of conditions. And to model the conditions of OTHERS (intentions), and to compare it to other conditions. So this is why we can hold about five things in mind at once before resorting to breaking a ‘vision’ into patterns. (I have elaborated on each of the dimensions elsewhere). 2) Few (possibly no non-tautological, or at least non-reductio) aprioristic statements survive scope consistency (I can find none in economics that are actionable). 3) We can establish free associations(hypotheses) empirically (top down) or constructively (bottom up). But the method of discovery places no truth constraint on the statement. All must survive the full test of dimensions. 4) This does NOT mean that we cannot use a ‘partial truth’ (an hypothesis that does not survive all six dimensions) to search for further associations (partial search criteria). It is this UTILITY IN SEARCHING that we have converted first into reason, second into rationalism, third into empiricism, fourth in to operationalism, and fifth into scope consistency, and sixth into ‘natural law’ or morality or ‘voluntary cooperation’ – volition which is necessary to ensure the information quality in small groups, just as norms and laws are necessary methods of establishing limits in larger groups, just as money is necessary for producing actionable information in very large groups. 5) there is but one epistemological method: accumulate information, identify pattern, search for hypothesis, criticize hypothesis to produce a theory, distribute the theory (speak), let others criticize the theory until it fails, or we create a conceptual norm of it (law), and finally until we habituate it entirely (metaphysical judgment). 6) There is nothing special about physical science other than philosophy was free of COST constraints but held by moral constraints, and science was free of MORAL constraints as well as cost constraints, and judicial law was bound by both. So by these three disciplines: the imaginary and mental, the cooperative and existential, and the physical – we managed to slowly assemble a sufficient understanding of truth in each of those disciplines, that together we can establish tests for ANY PROPOSITION in ANY DISCIPLINE: Mental, Cooperative, and PHYSICAL by the due diligence of consistency in the dimensions that apply to that instance. i) Categorical and Logical (mental) ii) Operational and Existential (physical) iii) Morality and Scope (cooperative) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Refuting Some Criticism
Sep 06, 2016 9:34am CRITICISM FROM ERIC —“Your first principles so far are nothing more than presuppositions and you have a lot of actual philosophical work to do if you are going to persuade deep thinkers, you can brush that aside by saying you’ve done the work and it’s in some writing that I haven’t seen yet but I’ve followed your writing for years now and these basic issues have simply not been addressed.”— Eric, Here is how I translate your … lack of criticism: Curt’s restatement: —“Until you produce examples of how to criticize a theory categorically, logically, empirically, operationally, morally, with full accounting, limits and parsimony, then I can’t understand and apply it.”— Now realistically, scientists in the physical sciences already do everything except testing for morality(the universe can’t ‘choose’ so to speak), and social scientists do not practice operationalism and full accounting, and rarely ‘limits’. Full accounting in nature requires we account for energy, and full accounting in social science merely requires we account for the full life cycle cost to all affected forms of property. Operationalism is covered as fully as it needs to be in these fields and even fantasy literature contains attempts to write in e-prime (existentially consistent prose). So just as libertarians foolishly constrain the scope of property to the intersubjectively verifiable, social science, economics, politics, and law, foolishly constrain scientific criticism to physicality, and fail to extend those same criteria (for historical reasons) to their fields of social science, by requiring that not only goods and services meet conditions of warranty before they are tested in the market, but that INFORMATION and LEGISLATION and LAW meet those conditions of warranty before they are tested in the market. Now, I make no pretense that I leave work to the audience. And that it requires a great deal of knowledge to grasp much of what I discuss. But operationalism in economics and social science exists (praxeology), and tests of existential possibility (e-prime) and it’s practiced or at least discussed in the literature of the other sciences and logics. Even the pseudoscience we call psychology has – over the past few decades – adopted ‘operationism’ as a method of escaping it’s pseudoscientific basis, and they now explicitly reject the Freudian methods. So we see experimental psychology (the study of error, bias and limits) and cognitive science, and cerebral chemistry answering the questions of psychology, and therapy continuing to help people with ‘training’ cognitive and behavioral errors, but not ‘curing’ disease and developmental disorders. So, I do not think I need to cover categorical, logical, and empirical consistency nor the use of each for falsification. Critical rationalism provides the argument for parsimony. Full accounting in social science required only the articulation of property-in-toto. Philosophy easily corrected by combining the scientific and epistemic fields under one amoral language. So, as far as I know I am combining what is necessary and practiced in the physical sciences with propertarian language in the social sciences. I don’t think that the problem I am trying to solve by articulating it is in the six dimensions of testimonialism. It is that through the use of those dimensions we can modify the social sciences and institutional applications of them (law) such that we can procedurally enforce due diligence and involuntary warranty on information (speech). So just as we warranty PHYSICAL goods (products) and warranty SERVICE goods(actions), we can also warranty INFORMATION goods (speech). So in law, we can impose warranty of due diligence on information as well as physical and action goods. And of COURSE I expect as much resistance to the performance of due diligence on informational goods as we have seen in the resistance to warranties of due diligence on service goods, physical goods, and the first good: property. People want to profit from the market at the lowest cost to themselves that’s possible. Its easy to understand. But in the information era, the greatest damage has been done by pseudoscience and deceit, just like the greatest damage to society in the ancient world was done by mysticism. So given that we have increased the production capacity of information (and misinformation) we must regulate information as we have regulated goods and services. So this is what I hope to communicate. I don’t feel it is my responsibility to teach anything other than full accounting using propertarianism, and to reframe praxeology as a test of existential possibility in social science. Everything else is actually known and people can go discover it on their own. I don’t know why I must teach what I consider (and others) basics of the philosophy of science. In fact, it’s these people that are the audience I am interested in reaching. If that makes me lazy that’s one thing. But it doesn’t make me a pseudoscientist, and it certainly doesn’t make my utterances false. 😉 Cheers.
-
Refuting Some Criticism
Sep 06, 2016 9:34am CRITICISM FROM ERIC —“Your first principles so far are nothing more than presuppositions and you have a lot of actual philosophical work to do if you are going to persuade deep thinkers, you can brush that aside by saying you’ve done the work and it’s in some writing that I haven’t seen yet but I’ve followed your writing for years now and these basic issues have simply not been addressed.”— Eric, Here is how I translate your … lack of criticism: Curt’s restatement: —“Until you produce examples of how to criticize a theory categorically, logically, empirically, operationally, morally, with full accounting, limits and parsimony, then I can’t understand and apply it.”— Now realistically, scientists in the physical sciences already do everything except testing for morality(the universe can’t ‘choose’ so to speak), and social scientists do not practice operationalism and full accounting, and rarely ‘limits’. Full accounting in nature requires we account for energy, and full accounting in social science merely requires we account for the full life cycle cost to all affected forms of property. Operationalism is covered as fully as it needs to be in these fields and even fantasy literature contains attempts to write in e-prime (existentially consistent prose). So just as libertarians foolishly constrain the scope of property to the intersubjectively verifiable, social science, economics, politics, and law, foolishly constrain scientific criticism to physicality, and fail to extend those same criteria (for historical reasons) to their fields of social science, by requiring that not only goods and services meet conditions of warranty before they are tested in the market, but that INFORMATION and LEGISLATION and LAW meet those conditions of warranty before they are tested in the market. Now, I make no pretense that I leave work to the audience. And that it requires a great deal of knowledge to grasp much of what I discuss. But operationalism in economics and social science exists (praxeology), and tests of existential possibility (e-prime) and it’s practiced or at least discussed in the literature of the other sciences and logics. Even the pseudoscience we call psychology has – over the past few decades – adopted ‘operationism’ as a method of escaping it’s pseudoscientific basis, and they now explicitly reject the Freudian methods. So we see experimental psychology (the study of error, bias and limits) and cognitive science, and cerebral chemistry answering the questions of psychology, and therapy continuing to help people with ‘training’ cognitive and behavioral errors, but not ‘curing’ disease and developmental disorders. So, I do not think I need to cover categorical, logical, and empirical consistency nor the use of each for falsification. Critical rationalism provides the argument for parsimony. Full accounting in social science required only the articulation of property-in-toto. Philosophy easily corrected by combining the scientific and epistemic fields under one amoral language. So, as far as I know I am combining what is necessary and practiced in the physical sciences with propertarian language in the social sciences. I don’t think that the problem I am trying to solve by articulating it is in the six dimensions of testimonialism. It is that through the use of those dimensions we can modify the social sciences and institutional applications of them (law) such that we can procedurally enforce due diligence and involuntary warranty on information (speech). So just as we warranty PHYSICAL goods (products) and warranty SERVICE goods(actions), we can also warranty INFORMATION goods (speech). So in law, we can impose warranty of due diligence on information as well as physical and action goods. And of COURSE I expect as much resistance to the performance of due diligence on informational goods as we have seen in the resistance to warranties of due diligence on service goods, physical goods, and the first good: property. People want to profit from the market at the lowest cost to themselves that’s possible. Its easy to understand. But in the information era, the greatest damage has been done by pseudoscience and deceit, just like the greatest damage to society in the ancient world was done by mysticism. So given that we have increased the production capacity of information (and misinformation) we must regulate information as we have regulated goods and services. So this is what I hope to communicate. I don’t feel it is my responsibility to teach anything other than full accounting using propertarianism, and to reframe praxeology as a test of existential possibility in social science. Everything else is actually known and people can go discover it on their own. I don’t know why I must teach what I consider (and others) basics of the philosophy of science. In fact, it’s these people that are the audience I am interested in reaching. If that makes me lazy that’s one thing. But it doesn’t make me a pseudoscientist, and it certainly doesn’t make my utterances false. 😉 Cheers.
-
We Imposed Truth On An Unwilling World
Aryanism -> Aristocracy -> Christanity -> Puritanism -> Imperialsm -> American Hegemonialism -> …..???? Do we evolve Aryanism once again, and do we return to our ancient ‘industry’ of domesticating and transcending man? Or do we fall into another dark age? Or do we disappear from the earth? No other civilization has done this. It is possible no other can. Is there any higher purpose that a man can be called to fight for? I can’t think of any. We discovered truth. We imposed it on an unwilling world. It was profitable.
-
We Imposed Truth On An Unwilling World
Aryanism -> Aristocracy -> Christanity -> Puritanism -> Imperialsm -> American Hegemonialism -> …..???? Do we evolve Aryanism once again, and do we return to our ancient ‘industry’ of domesticating and transcending man? Or do we fall into another dark age? Or do we disappear from the earth? No other civilization has done this. It is possible no other can. Is there any higher purpose that a man can be called to fight for? I can’t think of any. We discovered truth. We imposed it on an unwilling world. It was profitable.
-
The Competition Between Truth And Lies
EUGENIC (truth) vs DYSGENIC (lies) Reasonable Philosophy Rational Philosophy Analytic Philosophy Scientific (Operational) Philosophy Tradition and Mysticism Theological Philosophy Pseudoscience and Postmodernism (What lie will they invent next?) -
The Competition Between Truth And Lies
EUGENIC (truth) vs DYSGENIC (lies) Reasonable Philosophy Rational Philosophy Analytic Philosophy Scientific (Operational) Philosophy Tradition and Mysticism Theological Philosophy Pseudoscience and Postmodernism (What lie will they invent next?)