Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Brevity is the soul of wit (analogy, suggestion, deceit), while operational pros

    Brevity is the soul of wit (analogy, suggestion, deceit), while operational prose is the grammar of testimony (truth).

    I can write logic, algorithms, operational proofs (what you’re objecting to), arguments, essays, opinion, history, fiction, scripts, and poetry with near equal facility.

    But my job – requires the paradigm, logic, vocabulary, and syntax of testimonial truth: operational prose, including serialization as a mesurement in defense against ambiguity.

    It looks like ordinary language. But it’s closer to mathematics and programming, but using ordinal rather than cardinal logic.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @goufmanouf @ConceptualJames

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 15:14:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635298293818224640

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635284366476861444

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Well, you don’t know this, but you should be for engaging with me, that I work in cognitive science, behavioral economics, epistemology, testimony, law, and most especially the logic of lying. So just as when you go to a doctor or lawyer and speak, and in turn they disambiguate what you’ve said into causes, I do the same. It’s just that I see how you’re lying, defrauding, cheating, stealing, undermining, projecting, defending, evading, and denying. And work in this discipline unfortunately means a vast majority of the population is about as smart, cunning, witty, funny as a preschooler.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1635284366476861444

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @blunted_affect @Mathilduhhhh @FrailSkeleton WHY IS YOUR OPIN

    RT @curtdoolittle: @blunted_affect @Mathilduhhhh @FrailSkeleton WHY IS YOUR OPINION, APPROVAL, AND DISAPPROVAL IRRELEVANT?

    Thankfully trut…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 00:35:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635077162494754817

  • There is no substance to that argument other than pleading for people to share y

    There is no substance to that argument other than pleading for people to share your priorities and sentiments. I realize it is driven by your intuition more so than reason, and that’s not a bad thing. It doesn’t mean it’s substantive (true).
    Yes, every property of the universe can be, incrementally, reduced back to the quantum field, and the law of entropy vs negative entropy. I know. I can do it.
    So yes, causality is reducible as I said.
    This is method of construction from irreducible first principles is how we falsify the spectrum of deception by loading, framing, obscuring, fictions, fictionalisms, lying, denying, evading, projecting, undermining, and canceling.
    No, what you are trying to do, is empathize with another person’s struggles so that we can help them or resist them depending upon whether their actions lead to good or ill.
    That is a different question. It’s an INDIVIDUAL question.
    Of course we can try to accomodate one another, as individuals.
    But if we want to understand everyone’s behavior regardless of the individual, yes it’s reducible to acquisition(personal) and resonsibility (social).
    That doesn’t change causality.
    And the causality I gave is true – precisely because it’s the first principle: the most reducible cause of the subsequent consequences.

    (And what this method is called, is contructivist logic. It’s the means of falsifying any truth claim. It’s derived from intutionistic mathematics, and subsequently the evolution of mathematics into computation, consisting of sequences of operations.)

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @MichaelPlotke @ConceptualJames

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 00:21:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635073453752549376

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635069741114200068

  • There is no substance to that argument other than pleading for people to share y

    There is no substance to that argument other than pleading for people to share your priorities and sentiments. I realize it is driven by your intuition more so than reason, and that’s not a bad thing. It doesn’t mean it’s substantive (true).
    Yes, every property of the universe can be, incrementally, reduced back to the quantum field, and the law of entropy vs negative entropy. I know. I can do it.
    So yes, causality is reducible as I said.
    This is method of construction from irreducible first principles is how we falsify the spectrum of deception by loading, framing, obscuring, fictions, fictionalisms, lying, denying, evading, projecting, undermining, and canceling.
    No, what you are trying to do, is empathize with another person’s struggles so that we can help them or resist them depending upon whether their actions lead to good or ill.
    That is a different question. It’s an INDIVIDUAL question.
    Of course we can try to accomodate one another, as individuals.
    But if we want to understand everyone’s behavior regardless of the individual, yes it’s reducible to acquisition(personal) and resonsibility (social).
    That doesn’t change causality.
    And the causality I gave is true – precisely because it’s the first principle: the most reducible cause of the subsequent consequences.

    (And what this method is called, is contructivist logic. It’s the means of falsifying any truth claim. It’s derived from intutionistic mathematics, and subsequently the evolution of mathematics into computation, consisting of sequences of operations.)

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-13 00:21:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635073453949681665

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635069741114200068

  • Might be trying to say something there. But it didn’t happen. How do you know yo

    Might be trying to say something there.
    But it didn’t happen.
    How do you know you’re not pretending or presuming knowledge you do not possess? If you do possess the knowledge you could falsify it. If you cant, then you clearly don’t?

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 23:27:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635060098010869761

    Reply addressees: @likitysplit50

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635053887425236992

  • So is absence of argument, reinforcing ignorance, because of a presumption witho

    So is absence of argument, reinforcing ignorance, because of a presumption without testing by and evidence. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 22:11:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635040789381394433

    Reply addressees: @JymnEcrct @ConceptualJames

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635040293824393216

  • Try to falsify it. You won’t be able to. I promise. I know

    Try to falsify it. You won’t be able to. I promise. I know.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 22:08:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635040090211905536

    Reply addressees: @ScottJohn08 @ConceptualJames

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635039068697559040

  • You’d think so but you can’t falsify it. I go through this all the time. Many th

    You’d think so but you can’t falsify it.
    I go through this all the time. Many things you’d think wouldn’t survive set testing(idealism), survive operational testing(realism).
    Turns out, just FYI, oddly enough, that everything in the universe can be (obviously) reduced to first principles, and, reductively there is just one, and from it one general principle by which all matter and behavior evovles.
    The universe isn’t smart. It just does what’s possible at every given combination of complexity.

    Reply addressees: @cpa_dallas @ConceptualJames

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 22:07:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635039864008613888

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635038106826203137

  • You’d think so but you can’t falsify it. I go through this all the time. Many th

    You’d think so but you can’t falsify it.
    I go through this all the time. Many things you’d think wouldn’t survive set testing(idealism), survive operational testing(realism).
    Turns out, just FYI, oddly enough, that everything in the universe can be (obviously) reduced to first principles, and, reductively there is just one, and from it one general principle by which all matter and behavior evovles.
    The universe isn’t smart. It just does what’s possible at every given combination of complexity.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 22:07:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635039864088416262

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635038106826203137

  • WHY IS YOUR OPINION, APPROVAL, AND DISAPPROVAL IRRELEVANT? Thankfully truth isn’

    WHY IS YOUR OPINION, APPROVAL, AND DISAPPROVAL IRRELEVANT?

    Thankfully truth isn’t a matter of opinion or approval. I’m not quite sure where the vast majority of people developed the rather otherwise eccentric opinion that many ignorant opinions, or many disapproval, somehow relevant to an empirically stated inescapable truth.

    Most Women and those effeminate men have the habit of confusing their approval with truth, and disapproval with falsehood.

    In fact, other than failing the NAXALT/AXALT test, and use of certain vocabulary, it’s the easiest means of determining the sex (of the brain) of the individual.

    Your opinion, approval, and disapproval only matter in the context of the search for agreement between the parties in the discussion.

    In matters of decidability, for the determination of sufficient truth or falsehood, reciprocity or reciprocity, they’re absolutely positively irrelevant.

    And in most cases substitution (fraud) of approval/disapproval for truth/falsehood constitutes lying, denying, and deception, and undermining the true and the good.

    ie: you’re unethical, immoral, or criminal.

    ( … Now wasn’t that a fun little bit to read. 🙁 … )

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 19:05:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634994050137825280

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634980187095064576