[W]ell, I in retrospect I understand why no one else solved the problem of the Wilsonian synthesis: the merger of science and philosophy. Why no one else came up with testimonialism, propertarianism, and operational criticism. Also in retrospect, I am fairly certain that had Babbage’s machine been built and worked, that the synthesis would have happened in Hayek’s generation, instead of mine. But I am still suspicious that anything could have stopped the travesty of marxism, socialism, postmodernism, and feminism, as a war against truth. Why? Women did an amazing amount of damage with their enfranchisement.
Theme: Truth
-
Retrospect. Babbage Could Have Saved Us A Century?
[W]ell, I in retrospect I understand why no one else solved the problem of the Wilsonian synthesis: the merger of science and philosophy. Why no one else came up with testimonialism, propertarianism, and operational criticism. Also in retrospect, I am fairly certain that had Babbage’s machine been built and worked, that the synthesis would have happened in Hayek’s generation, instead of mine. But I am still suspicious that anything could have stopped the travesty of marxism, socialism, postmodernism, and feminism, as a war against truth. Why? Women did an amazing amount of damage with their enfranchisement.
-
I have been looking into political correctness. I’m sure you must have covered t
I have been looking into political correctness. I’m sure you must have covered this, but can’t see where – unless it’s just covered by generally being untruthful. I came across the book ‘Thought Prison: the fundamental nature of Political Correctness’, by Professor Bruce Charlton, which looks a useful discourse on the subject. The author uses the term instead of liberalism or socialism.
He believes that the PC are nihilists, truth is a social construct and that this strikes at the root of vitality.
What is your take on the subject? Apologies for the Amazon link, but it was the best I could find – there’s also a useful blog on this that FB didn’t seem to want to let me post:
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-06 12:23:00 UTC
-
Well, I in retrospect I understand why no one else solved the problem of the Wil
Well, I in retrospect I understand why no one else solved the problem of the Wilsonian synthesis: the merger of science and philosophy. Why no one else came up with testimonialism, propertarianism, and operational criticism.
Also in retrospect, I am fairly certain that had Babbage’s machine been built and worked, that the synthesis would have happened in Hayek’s generation, instead of mine.
But I am still suspicious that anything could have stopped the travesty of marxism, socialism, postmodernism, and feminism, as a war against truth. Women did an amazing amount of damage with their enfranchisement.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-02 11:16:00 UTC
-
Truth: Laundering Error, Bias, Imaginary Content, Wishful Thinking, and Deceit f
Truth: Laundering Error, Bias, Imaginary Content, Wishful Thinking, and Deceit from our free associations, hypothesis, theories, and laws.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-02 10:25:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/616553188599140352
-
Universal Grammars of Action and Experience
[I] think that any set of symbols in any form, capable of reconstructing the requisite experience of reality allows for some degree of truth communication between humans, superhumans, human-made-machines, and if they exist, aliens capable of action and communication.
I have a hard time imagining that a basic instruction set is not accessible to any sentient creature capable of acting in reality. That’s because most of what we wish to communicate is state change, and I can easily see a universal grammar of state change in the physical world, just as easily as I can see a universal grammar of mathematical operations. Actions produce state changes.
What I can’t see is a universal grammar of subjective experience. It is hard enough to communicate across cultures and languages. I can see “in my interests” and “against my interests” as well as the plural “our interests”. It appears to be possible to create a universal grammar of emotion among earth’s creatures, because it is a very simple thing. So maybe a universal grammar is possible (now that I think about it, I think I might be able to do it.) (Damn…. I just gave myself more work to do.)
-
Universal Grammars of Action and Experience
[I] think that any set of symbols in any form, capable of reconstructing the requisite experience of reality allows for some degree of truth communication between humans, superhumans, human-made-machines, and if they exist, aliens capable of action and communication.
I have a hard time imagining that a basic instruction set is not accessible to any sentient creature capable of acting in reality. That’s because most of what we wish to communicate is state change, and I can easily see a universal grammar of state change in the physical world, just as easily as I can see a universal grammar of mathematical operations. Actions produce state changes.
What I can’t see is a universal grammar of subjective experience. It is hard enough to communicate across cultures and languages. I can see “in my interests” and “against my interests” as well as the plural “our interests”. It appears to be possible to create a universal grammar of emotion among earth’s creatures, because it is a very simple thing. So maybe a universal grammar is possible (now that I think about it, I think I might be able to do it.) (Damn…. I just gave myself more work to do.)
-
Man Creates Truth
[M]AN CREATES TRUTH. TRUTH MUST BE SPOKEN. ALL ELSE IS JUST EXISTENCE. You see, the statement ‘full of truth’ is an existentially impossible statement. The universe exists. Truth must be stated. Error, bias, imagination, wishful thinking, and deception can be removed from our utterances. I use the term “Truthful” for warrantied speech. It is not so much that ‘Truthful’ speech is full of truth, but that it is laundered of error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, and deception. So our utterances can never ‘be full of truth’. Truth is constructed. It does not exist prior to its construction. Truth is a product of man’s action. Everything else is just existence. Source: (1) Curt Doolittle – MAN CREATES TRUTH. TRUTH MUST BE SPOKEN. ALL ELSE…
-
Man Creates Truth
[M]AN CREATES TRUTH. TRUTH MUST BE SPOKEN. ALL ELSE IS JUST EXISTENCE. You see, the statement ‘full of truth’ is an existentially impossible statement. The universe exists. Truth must be stated. Error, bias, imagination, wishful thinking, and deception can be removed from our utterances. I use the term “Truthful” for warrantied speech. It is not so much that ‘Truthful’ speech is full of truth, but that it is laundered of error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, and deception. So our utterances can never ‘be full of truth’. Truth is constructed. It does not exist prior to its construction. Truth is a product of man’s action. Everything else is just existence. Source: (1) Curt Doolittle – MAN CREATES TRUTH. TRUTH MUST BE SPOKEN. ALL ELSE…
-
Can The Truth Be A Commons?
(Interesting)
—“Truth telling is commons, but truth is not commons?”—
[L]et me state this clearly:
“The act of habituating truth-telling as both a normative behavior and skill is an expensive normative commons (asset) for a population to construct.” 1) How does truth telling exist? The commons of truth telling exists as both demonstrated habit, and in the institutional means for its inter-temporal and intergenerational persistence: testimony, jury and law. 2) How does truth exist? I put it this way: that information can be treated as a commons, and we can protect the informational commons just as we do every other commons both physical and normative. So when we propose the statement ‘is the truth a commons?’ we are stuck with whether can we treat the truth as a commons. That requires we define truth, which as far as I know, can consist only of the extant history of truthfully constructed statements. If we protected those statements, then that’s not logical. Because we do not in fact know whether they are true, only that they are truthfully constructed. 3) So our only choice then is to require that only truthful statements enter into the commons, and then let the best surviving statements rise and the lesser fall. Just as we require only non-harmful products enter into the market for goods and services and allow them to rise and fall. There is no truth that can exist as a commons. There can exist only truthfully constructed statements. And we cannot protect those statements since it’s counter-productive. We can only prohibit ‘polluting’ them like all other commons. Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.