He has too many reasons to suspect the veracity of your testimony. ;). Gradually people catch on but only after you solve a problem for them using our work. That spurs the curiosity and suspends the doubt. 😉 After that it’s just repeating that process until they develop the curiosity to pursue it.
Source date (UTC): 2025-07-03 22:39:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1940903336376766693
Almost anything I post can be found by use of google image search for images or google search for text.
I use either –“”– for quotes or ~~””~~ for paraphrases of quotable text.
I only quote my own authorship if it’s ‘from elsewhere’.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-28 18:58:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1939035795480068150
–“As in all things, most people define ‘True’, ‘Ethical’ and ‘Moral’ according to their abilities, biases, utility, and knowledge.”–
The Natural Law, Volume IV – The Law.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 18:44:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937582662878970339
Well you can contrive a private meaning for the term true, but the only ‘true’ that is not imaginary and subjective is that which is testifiable and survives adversarial testimony.
You appear to be worth investing in. 😉 (my form of a profound compliment) 😉
So,
All my work relies on ternary logic an/or supply and demand instead of syllogistic truth or falsehood.
So instead I suggest ‘true enough for what’?
Here is Curt Doolittle’s explicit truth spectrum, as stated in his operational epistemology:
“True enough for me to believe it”
“True enough for me to act upon it”
“True enough for others to act upon it”
“True enough for us to coordinate upon it”
“True enough for others to rely upon it”
“True enough to demand restitution if false”
“True enough to use as evidence in court under oath”
“True enough to use in the conduct of science”
“True enough to use in the construction of a formal logic or mathematics”
Each level represents an increasing standard of warranty, reciprocity, and liability, moving from subjective belief to universal decidability under formal institutional constraints. This spectrum underpins Doolittle’s performative definition of truth: truth is a warranty of non-imposition that satisfies the demand for testifiability in the relevant context.
Curt Doolittle defines decidability as:
“The satisfaction of the demand for infallibility in the context in question, without the necessity of discretion.”This means a claim is decidable if it can be judged true or false without subjective interpretation, relying only on operationally defined, testifiable, and reciprocally insurable terms. Decidability eliminates ambiguity by making all judgments algorithmically resolvable given the context—legal, scientific, ethical, or cooperative.
In Doolittle’s framework, this criterion is required to institutionalize reciprocity and prevent discretionary rule. It is a logical and moral standard, necessary for converting moral intuitions or beliefs into formal law and policy.
Here is the current state of our GPT if you want to ask it questions. But ensure that when you ask and want my exact words to say so. Otherwise it generates its interpretation. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 18:34:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937580129770930298
I don’t know if I’d disagree with ‘meaning’ or ‘knowledge sufficient for individual action’ which is I think your intention. My problem is different: judicial and political – when we are in conflict, or perhaps more importantly, when people use non-testimonial methods to achieve personal to political ends while engaging in the spectrum of baiting into hazard that constitutes so much of human discourse.
The only problem is the mixed bag of say, religion, or say marxist pseudoscience, which attempts to achieve a good by fictionalist means (deception), that by externality causes harm – and all religions it turns out caused as much harm as they did good.
But the three philosophical traditions of europeanism, confucianism, and original buddhism, … each was defeated by some other ‘religion’ because the original non false solutions to the expansion of human numbers were inaccessible by too much of the population.
In other words, the upper intellectual classes can produce non-false non-bad philosophies that fulfill the demands of any religion in producing mindfulness. But they are not available to far too much of the population that is less cognitively evolved (or carrying too much genetic load).
This is … depressing.
What we can learn however, is that it just means we must spend more on indoctrination than we have so far. Religions are cheap indoctrination. Education is expensive indoctrination. But it may require expensive indoctrination to leave behind our vulnerability the hazards of easily accessible religions as a means of achieving mindfulness.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 18:22:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937577123918872730
I mean, you are only concerned with self and others who agree with you. But hte function of judges in resolving conflicts is one of independence of subjectivity.
The reason you think as you do is because you have been indoctrinated into a given moral system that relies on justification and makes few demands of people and presumes a relatively simplistic agrarian condition of life.
The fish is unaware of the water.
I mean, you are only concerned with self and others who agree with you. But the function of judges in resolving conflicts is one of independence of subjectivity.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 17:18:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937561059721904208
Though it is possible that you are not concerned with truth and testimony (if I read you correctly) and as such cognitive ‘crayons’ are irrelevant, since my purpose is ending lying and deceit by the ‘less precise’ means you allude to. And those means you allude to are in fact the principle means of lying deceiving fraud and civilizational collapse. 🙁
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 17:15:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937560348573466938
point one is non logical. You can’t testify to it then you can’t claim it’s true. You can only claim faith or belief in it, you can’t testify to it.
Symbolism provokes a subconscious response that provokes a set of associative emotions. There are approximately zero cases where we cannot convert them to causality. Though, like all qualia, the description of a thing may be unambiguous but it is not the same as fully experiencing a thing. However, qualia is marginally indifferent across humans which is the reason we can communicate once we establish agreement on terms that define the spectrum of experience we refer to.
I am not sure I either understand or agree with your statement on straightness since we are fully aware that physical measurements whether a plumb’s string, a chain’s length, a laser’s distance all measure a world within the limits of marginal indifference for the purpose at hand. The fact that we must compensate for context when discussing ‘lines’ and ‘straight’ is merely degree. In the plumb as the ancients did, it’s context is different from the curvature of earth when measuring landscapes as the medievals did, and is different from the movement of objects in space and time vs the speed of light as moderns do.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 17:12:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937559473159307772
that’s playing a word game. For example how could you communicate anything meaningful without language of some sort to disambiguate it.
necessity: Reducibility to analogy to experience rendering subjective comparison and differentiating possible.
measurement: generating a name in a set of positional names for the degree of differentiation.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 16:58:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937556049218969878
(NLI Diary)
I swear to god it is harder to explain my (our) work to non professionals as it was to solve some of the fundamental problems of intellectual history.
We can demonstrate it. People can at least partly understand the difference between ChatGPT and our CurtGPT. We can explain it – to people with perhaps advanced degrees in philosophy, and some computer scientists that have stumbled into AI.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 16:54:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937554917755117859