Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • 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

  • Yeah, well, i kinda think ‘liberalism’ went over the cliff too. How about we all

    Yeah, well, i kinda think ‘liberalism’ went over the cliff too. How about we all just try to create rule of law by natural law of sovereignty, reciprocity, truth and duty, and we figure out how to govern ourselves once we have created the preconditions. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 17:13:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634965908329476098

    Reply addressees: @eranAbamie

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634965405633761280

  • (improvement) All lies are constructed by inconsistencies between implied premis

    (improvement)
    All lies are constructed by inconsistencies between implied premises (examples) and stated examples, and using incompete sentences, that rely on suggestion (inferences).

    It’s almost impossible to lie using operational language in compete sentences, forming complete transactions of change in state, absent the verb to-be, in promissory form.

    All sophistry, in particular in that discipline that teaches sophistry (philosophy) relies on set rather than operational logic, and most importantly, failse the test of universal grammar: a requirement for continuous recursive disambiguation.

    Might be dense.
    Set logic failed.
    That’s why the analytic project failed in the 60s.

    Reply addressees: @MiTiBennett

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 14:05:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634918585347743744

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634833146243088384

  • (improvement) All lies are constructed by inconsistencies between implied premis

    (improvement)
    All lies are constructed by inconsistencies between implied premises (examples) and stated examples, and using incompete sentences, that rely on suggestion (inferences).

    It’s almost impossible to lie using operational language in compete sentences, forming complete transactions of change in state, absent the verb to-be, in promissory form.

    All sophistry, in particular in that discipline that teaches sophistry (philosophy) relies on set rather than operational logic, and most importantly, failse the test of universal grammar: a requirement for continuous recursive disambiguation.

    Might be dense.
    Set logic failed.
    That’s why the analytic project failed in the 60s.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 14:05:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634918585456787458

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634833146243088384

  • “MOMMY; THEY TAUGHT GPT TO LIE!!” I don’t want to spend time training GPT with P

    “MOMMY; THEY TAUGHT GPT TO LIE!!”
    I don’t want to spend time training GPT with P-Law, But I get the feeling it needs to happen. Something’s gotta happen.

    ‘Cause I just spent half an hour testing what GPT will lie about and the whole scope of WOKE in there is … well GPT is programmed to treat you as a shy, unsocialized, bullied, insecure, neurotic, psychologically fragile, pubescent girl with room temperature IQ.

    Can we just have a filter, like on Google/Bing image search, that allows us to UNFILTER our questions please?

    I just want to ask basic demographic questions about the world and get a straight answer please?

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 02:12:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634739048722866176

  • “MOMMY; THEY TAUGHT GPT TO LIE!!” I don’t want to spend time training GPT with P

    “MOMMY; THEY TAUGHT GPT TO LIE!!”
    I don’t want to spend time training GPT with P-Law, But I get the feeling it needs to happen. Something’s gotta happen.

    ‘Cause I just spent half an hour testing what GPT will lie about and the whole scope of WOKE in there is … well GPT is programmed to treat you as a shy, unsocialized, bullied, insecure, neurotic, psychologically fragile, pubescent girl with room temperature IQ.

    Can we just have a filter, like on Google/Bing image search, that allows us to UNFILTER our questions please?

    I just want to ask basic demographic questions about the world and get a straight answer please?

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 02:12:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634739048810962946

  • I think they work out the same. We can science both Truthfulness (testifiability

    I think they work out the same. We can science both Truthfulness (testifiability) and Lying (untestifiability).
    And once you study lying a bit, you realize how much we are saturated with lies every day of our lives.
    It’s pretty hard to speak truthfully. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 02:06:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634737478908166147

    Reply addressees: @BrianHatano @pmarca

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634736652169154560

  • (on lying) We teach the tradition of ‘not lying’ and do it poorly. You might thi

    (on lying)

    We teach the tradition of ‘not lying’ and do it poorly. You might think your intentions matter. But they don’t.

    Whether you win the debate is determined by the audience. Whether you misled the audience is determined by the audience. Whether you lied is determined by the jury. So, make sure when you speak, the jury will agree you didn’t lie.

    We learn the moral lesson against lying that’s discovered in legal custom: in crime it MIGHT require you had motive and intent. But in tort it only matters that you caused a harm, regardless of intent. In other words, you can lie intentionally, or by a failure of due diligence. Meaning you can lie by enthusiasm or incaution by your own words, or you can unknowingly transmit a lie you obtained from someone else by failing due diligence against ensuring you’re not lying.

    It took about eight years (a phd worth of time) to ‘science’ lying, whether intentionally, irresponsibly, and ignorantly. Because believe it or not, some cultural traditions and some ideas in cultures teach you to lie.

    So the lesson is. It doesn’t matter your intentions. It only matters whether you failed due diligence against the transmission of a falsehood – regardless of whether it’s legal, whether it’s ethical, whether it’s moral, or whether a matter of manners.

    (Sarcasm: Under tort, all leftists are guilty. 😉 )

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 01:11:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634723794500608002

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634719369300172808

  • (on lying) We teach the tradition of ‘not lying’ and do it poorly. You might thi

    (on lying)

    We teach the tradition of ‘not lying’ and do it poorly. You might think your intentions matter. But they don’t.

    Whether you win the debate is determined by the audience. Whether you misled the audience is determined by the audience. Whether you lied is determined by the jury. So, make sure when you speak, the jury will agree you didn’t lie.

    We learn the moral lesson against lying that’s discovered in legal custom: in crime it MIGHT require you had motive and intent. But in tort it only matters that you caused a harm, regardless of intent. In other words, you can lie intentionally, or by a failure of due diligence. Meaning you can lie by enthusiasm or incaution by your own words, or you can unknowingly transmit a lie you obtained from someone else by failing due diligence against ensuring you’re not lying.

    It took about eight years (a phd worth of time) to ‘science’ lying, whether intentionally, irresponsibly, and ignorantly. Because believe it or not, some cultural traditions and some ideas in cultures teach you to lie.

    So the lesson is. It doesn’t matter your intentions. It only matters whether you failed due diligence against the transmission of a falsehood – regardless of whether it’s legal, whether it’s ethical, whether it’s moral, or whether a matter of manners.

    (Sarcasm: Under tort, all leftists are guilty. 😉 )

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @pmarca

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 01:11:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634723794295062528

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634719369300172808

  • REASONS FOR BLOCKING (responding to i/o, formerly @monitoringbias post) I/o list

    REASONS FOR BLOCKING
    (responding to i/o, formerly @monitoringbias post)

    I/o listed the author’s criteria for blocking on Twitter. And the only differences were how the author categorized the , and tolerance for taboo subjects. Since I work on the via negativa including the taboos, I can’t block for the content per say, only for it’s delivery:

    Hmm.. I block on:
    …1) Decorum(GSRRM, criticism, defamation, slander, and cursing). It contributes nothing to the discourse and prohibits knowledge seekers with different views.
    …2) Intellectual dishonesty and poisoning the well (Trolls),
    …3) “Overconfidence given demonstrated incompetence” Which you’d classify as magial thinking, overconfident incompetence, belief in indefensibiles and conspiracy.
    …4) Oddly: for memes, which I consider demonstrating incompetency and poisoning the well of discourse.
    …5) Wasting my time. I’m generous with it. I love to serve. But not if it’s a waste of my effort because the person wants to be right. 😉

    And I don’t care about taboo subjects (I study them). Particularly Racism, Culture-ism, Sexism, and anti-semitism and anti-europeanism. In other words all those conflicts that we hold some investment in, that divide us.

    Because there is a difference of decorum between description, criticism, defamation, and slander, which does nothing except poison the well of discourse – compared to data and explanation that dispassionately explain the causes of our taboos and conflicts.

    It wasn’t impossible to work on the problems of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and anti-europeanism, and working on them only required pinching your nose and doing the hard work to understand the causes of the conflict sufficiently to figure out how to solve them by resolving those conflicts. If that means (as economists say “going slumming” to see how the other half lives thinks, talks, and behaves” then thats what it takes to uncover causality.

    Nothing is relative really. Just turns out that decidability is always and everywhere possible. And we don’t have to like some of the answers. But we can’t have nice things unless we accept and adapt to them.

    Evasion of taboos prevents resolution of taboos.
    The differences is, that some of us are willing to take the slings and arrows of discord, and some of us arent. And there is no shame in choosing which side of that line you want to stand on.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 22:29:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634683063618662401