Theme: Truth

  • COMMON PROBLEM, WHY ‘PHILOSOPHY IS OVER’ While in intellectual history we positi

    COMMON PROBLEM, WHY ‘PHILOSOPHY IS OVER’
    While in intellectual history we position philosophy as the bridge between religion and science, given the failure of philosophy in the 20th as set theory came to an end, and we developed an understanding of language and programming, every claim and frame used in Philosophy is somewhere between pre-science and pseudoscience.

    IOW: REligion is cheap and easy enough for children. Philosophy is a bit more costly but accessible to young adults. But one studies philosophy because like history and literature, it can be gradually accumulated while maintaining sensibility over time. While studying the four sciences: math, computation, simulation, physics, genetics, cognitive science, language/grammars, economics, and law are each challenging fields that don’t provide the comfort of the pretense of understanding while we’re accumulating knowledge. They do however prevent overconfidence and anchoring as does philosophy – particularly literary philosophy in Plato (Vs empirical as in Aristotle/Epicurus).

    1) We have legs (Noun). But we must organize them in motion to run (Verb). Does running exist? Or is running a potential that we bring into existence by enabling the process of running?

    2) We have a brain (noun). That brain operates as long as we are alive (verb). (well… most of us do anyway πŸ˜‰ ) That brain continuously, unceasingly, without ever stopping, processes stimuli from the nervous system (noun) and if anything requires mental or bodily action (verb) activates our awareness (verb) first and consciousness (verb) second in rapid sequence via the thalamus (noun). And because all actions are calculated in parallel with all instinct, intuition, consideration, and decision, those actions are released either involuntarily(via interrupt) or voluntarily (via consciousness).

    3) So we have a brain, and we are capable of unaware, aware, unconscious, and conscious cognitive and physical actions. So while material states (nouns) persist over time, material processes (verbs), do not persist over time, but are potentials brought into temporary existence with actions in time.

    4) All of these processes are material (physical). They are not always introspectable (internally observable). But they are all scientifically explainable – yes even Qualia (idiosyncratic experience under marginal indifference.)

    5) That is the only ‘duality’. Noun vs Verb. And philosophy was a failure for two causal reasons. a) words(ideals) vs actions(reals), b) all statements are promissory c) the demand for testifiability, d) the failure to understand the holes in grammar (too many to list here), e) the verb to-be or in other languages its implication f) the failure in particular of the hole in grammar exemplified by “the liar’s paradox that isn’t”: the demand for satisfaction of continuous recursive disambiguation. (this is the most important one).

    6) And while understanding the brain was previously difficult at present, we can explain pretty much everything in the brain at an operational level, simply because it turns out the brain does one thing with a very small number of rules and a whole LOT of neurons, axons, dendrites, synapses, organized into mini-columns, columns, subregions, and regions that produces what we discovered in computer science: about the same exact framework as a 3d game. In other words, the only possible means of building a computer world model turns out to be the only possible means of producing a real-world model. And we even know where each bit of that geometry is produced, and hierarchically organized by competition into an episodic moment, that if generates any novelty is recursively activated until the network producing it it preserved in memory.

    Reality programs the brain. The rest of it is just the number of nerves that reach the brain from each body part, and the brainstem’s desire for homeostasis and the brain’s effort to provide it.

    Cheers
    -Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @CharlesL1902 @demosphachtes @KetaIDFBabe


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 17:32:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633521080840200195

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633512842799480833

  • COMMON PROBLEM, WHY ‘PHILOSOPHY IS OVER’ While in intellectual history we positi

    COMMON PROBLEM, WHY ‘PHILOSOPHY IS OVER’
    While in intellectual history we position philosophy as the bridge between religion and science, given the failure of philosophy in the 20th as set theory came to an end, and we developed an understanding of language and programming, every claim and frame used in Philosophy is somewhere between pre-science and pseudoscience.

    IOW: REligion is cheap and easy enough for children. Philosophy is a bit more costly but accessible to young adults. But one studies philosophy because like history and literature, it can be gradually accumulated while maintaining sensibility over time. While studying the four sciences: math, computation, simulation, physics, genetics, cognitive science, language/grammars, economics, and law are each challenging fields that don’t provide the comfort of the pretense of understanding while we’re accumulating knowledge. They do however prevent overconfidence and anchoring as does philosophy – particularly literary philosophy in Plato (Vs empirical as in Aristotle/Epicurus).

    1) We have legs (Noun). But we must organize them in motion to run (Verb). Does running exist? Or is running a potential that we bring into existence by enabling the process of running?

    2) We have a brain (noun). That brain operates as long as we are alive (verb). (well… most of us do anyway πŸ˜‰ ) That brain continuously, unceasingly, without ever stopping, processes stimuli from the nervous system (noun) and if anything requires mental or bodily action (verb) activates our awareness (verb) first and consciousness (verb) second in rapid sequence via the thalamus (noun). And because all actions are calculated in parallel with all instinct, intuition, consideration, and decision, those actions are released either involuntarily(via interrupt) or voluntarily (via consciousness).

    3) So we have a brain, and we are capable of unaware, aware, unconscious, and conscious cognitive and physical actions. So while material states (nouns) persist over time, material processes (verbs), do not persist over time, but are potentials brought into temporary existence with actions in time.

    4) All of these processes are material (physical). They are not always introspectable (internally observable). But they are all scientifically explainable – yes even Qualia (idiosyncratic experience under marginal indifference.)

    5) That is the only ‘duality’. Noun vs Verb. And philosophy was a failure for two causal reasons. a) words(ideals) vs actions(reals), b) all statements are promissory c) the demand for testifiability, d) the failure to understand the holes in grammar (too many to list here), e) the verb to-be or in other languages its implication f) the failure in particular of the hole in grammar exemplified by “the liar’s paradox that isn’t”: the demand for satisfaction of continuous recursive disambiguation. (this is the most important one).

    6) And while understanding the brain was previously difficult at present, we can explain pretty much everything in the brain at an operational level, simply because it turns out the brain does one thing with a very small number of rules and a whole LOT of neurons, axons, dendrites, synapses, organized into mini-columns, columns, subregions, and regions that produces what we discovered in computer science: about the same exact framework as a 3d game. In other words, the only possible means of building a computer world model turns out to be the only possible means of producing a real-world model. And we even know where each bit of that geometry is produced, and hierarchically organized by competition into an episodic moment, that if generates any novelty is recursively activated until the network producing it it preserved in memory.

    Reality programs the brain. The rest of it is just the number of nerves that reach the brain from each body part, and the brainstem’s desire for homeostasis and the brain’s effort to provide it.

    Cheers
    -Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 17:32:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633521081226076187

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633512842799480833

  • “WHAT WE SAW”: WHAT IF ALL PUBLIC SPEECH IN MATTERS PUBLIC WAS SUBJECT TO STRICT

    “WHAT WE SAW”: WHAT IF ALL PUBLIC SPEECH IN MATTERS PUBLIC WAS SUBJECT TO STRICT LIMITS ON PERJURY: TESTIFIABILITY?
    (reforms) (Part 1)
    Trust in government, in our bureaucracies, in our institutions, and in our international institutions is lower than in our industries.

    We saw politicians, public intellectuals, ‘scientists’ and media saturate us with information that was produced by scientists but was in no way science proper: The Intellectual Marketplace equivalent of Court Testimony.

    We saw our government demonstrate just how much a credentialed (undemonstrated) pseudo-elite (incompetent) is desperate to escape the limits placed on service bureaucracies, to seek attention, influence, career climbing, and money – or as in the most obvious case, to escape from collusion by evading regulation to engage in illegal research.

    We saw regulators, bureaucrats, politicians and economists fantasize in creating a utopian economic condition of majority white-collar service workers fulfilling the neoliberal fantasy; to produce state-of-the-union accounts that ignored the spectrum of capital from human, to resource, to built, to formal institutional, to behavioral institutional; to produce GDP numbers that do not reflect either that capital structure, or the ratio between labor competency and productivity necessary to maintain strategic invulnerability; and worse, to leave the country strategically dependent upon the goodwill of existing and potential enemies – enemies who do not want to end the era of authoritarian agrarian empires of conquest that do not require high trust public or public trust in institutions, instead of modern high trust societies and polities, as individual sovereign states, federated for defense, and trading for the common good.

    We saw the corruption of the treasury, the central bank, the banking and financial sector, and SEC – and even the economics profession that enabled the crimes of all of them. And worse, including the CBO, these people put out numbers – especially GDP – that do not capture research and development cost

    We saw the politicization of Justice, the FBI, Homeland Security, and now the CIA – where politicization is just another word for corruption. Especially in the disintermediation of our people from the courts, activist courts, secret courts, and unequal prosecution, all in violation of natural, human, common law, constitutional rights, obligations, and inalienations.

    We saw the failure of our “Insurers of Last Resort” – the first purpose of the government – because of the ‘institutional capture’ of FEMA, CDC, WHO, and now IMF. On top of the failure of the UN that is just a hostile force against the developed world. These people are rent-seekers, seeking exit from the competitive economy, and instead, pursue status-seeking and career climbing along with their peers.

    We saw the ‘forcible conversion’ of our education system from one whose primary function is to produce citizens capable of self-determination by self-determined means and capacity to make democratic decisions under economically and empirically limited means and ends. The academy is for all intents and purposes repeating the Christian destruction of the roman world, from within, by the same means: a new cult promising freedom from the four laws of nature: scarcity, behavior, evolution, and logic.

    We have a limited set of defenses against a corrupt government and its special interests.
    – Boycott: is ineffective outside of commercial interests that are outside of state capture.
    – Canceling: Effective for commercial interests that don’t cave to threats of undermining.
    – The Vote: Ineffective for other than special interests, because votes always reflect those interests and never those the people demand.
    – The Court: Ineffective b/c of limitations on rule of law that grants special privileges to state actors.
    – And Uprising: Effective only for the radical left that assists the state in power accumulation.

    (Continued in Part 2)


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 16:50:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633510611156967427

  • “WHAT WE SAW”: WHAT IF ALL PUBLIC SPEECH IN MATTERS PUBLIC WAS SUBJECT TO STRICT

    “WHAT WE SAW”: WHAT IF ALL PUBLIC SPEECH IN MATTERS PUBLIC WAS SUBJECT TO STRICT LIMITS ON PERJURY: TESTIFIABILITY?
    (reforms) (Part 1)
    Trust in government, in our bureaucracies, in our institutions, and in our international institutions is lower than in our industries.

    We saw politicians, public intellectuals, ‘scientists’ and media saturate us with information that was produced by scientists but was in no way science proper: The Intellectual Marketplace equivalent of Court Testimony.

    We saw our government demonstrate just how much a credentialed (undemonstrated) pseudo-elite (incompetent) is desperate to escape the limits placed on service bureaucracies, to seek attention, influence, career climbing, and money – or as in the most obvious case, to escape from collusion by evading regulation to engage in illegal research.

    We saw regulators, bureaucrats, politicians and economists fantasize in creating a utopian economic condition of majority white-collar service workers fulfilling the neoliberal fantasy; to produce state-of-the-union accounts that ignored the spectrum of capital from human, to resource, to built, to formal institutional, to behavioral institutional; to produce GDP numbers that do not reflect either that capital structure, or the ratio between labor competency and productivity necessary to maintain strategic invulnerability; and worse, to leave the country strategically dependent upon the goodwill of existing and potential enemies – enemies who do not want to end the era of authoritarian agrarian empires of conquest that do not require high trust public or public trust in institutions, instead of modern high trust societies and polities, as individual sovereign states, federated for defense, and trading for the common good.

    We saw the corruption of the treasury, the central bank, the banking and financial sector, and SEC – and even the economics profession that enabled the crimes of all of them. And worse, including the CBO, these people put out numbers – especially GDP – that do not capture research and development cost

    We saw the politicization of Justice, the FBI, Homeland Security, and now the CIA – where politicization is just another word for corruption. Especially in the disintermediation of our people from the courts, activist courts, secret courts, and unequal prosecution, all in violation of natural, human, common law, constitutional rights, obligations, and inalienations.

    We saw the failure of our “Insurers of Last Resort” – the first purpose of the government – because of the ‘institutional capture’ of FEMA, CDC, WHO, and now IMF. On top of the failure of the UN that is just a hostile force against the developed world. These people are rent-seekers, seeking exit from the competitive economy, and instead, pursue status-seeking and career climbing along with their peers.

    We saw the ‘forcible conversion’ of our education system from one whose primary function is to produce citizens capable of self-determination by self-determined means and capacity to make democratic decisions under economically and empirically limited means and ends. The academy is for all intents and purposes repeating the Christian destruction of the roman world, from within, by the same means: a new cult promising freedom from the four laws of nature: scarcity, behavior, evolution, and logic.

    We have a limited set of defenses against a corrupt government and its special interests.
    – Boycott: is ineffective outside of commercial interests that are outside of state capture.
    – Canceling: Effective for commercial interests that don’t cave to threats of undermining.
    – The Vote: Ineffective for other than special interests, because votes always reflect those interests and never those the people demand.
    – The Court: Ineffective b/c of limitations on rule of law that grants special privileges to state actors.
    – And Uprising: Effective only for the radical left that assists the state in power accumulation.

    (Continued in Part 2)


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 16:50:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633510611656089606

  • I was sending you hugs of appreciation for your intellectual honesty, manners, a

    I was sending you hugs of appreciation for your intellectual honesty, manners, and persistence so far…. But, I have no idea, yet, if you have the ability to understand anything substantive I’m saying or why. And I suspect you’re going to trouble me, and force me to try to, and…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-07 22:38:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633235669609766915

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633234670618918913

  • THE ONLY MORAL EQUIVALENCY Any moral person can explain his or her reasoning beh

    THE ONLY MORAL EQUIVALENCY
    Any moral person can explain his or her reasoning behind his or her moral actions, and collectively they will produce an infinite number of narratives, despite that their choices and actions that resulted with be the same – or at least indifferently so.

    All moral people are the same in word and deed, and all immoral people are different in word and deed.

    There is only one way to act and speak morally, and that is by reciprocity.

    Reciprocity may vary in context, but it does not vary across contexts. This is why the discipline of morality appears confusion. What consists of reciprocity on culture may not in the next. But across cultures it’s always the same, because there is no cultural context across cultures: just reciprocity.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-07 21:05:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633212259412393985

  • THE ONLY MORAL EQUIVALENCY Any moral person can explain his or her reasoning beh

    THE ONLY MORAL EQUIVALENCY
    Any moral person can explain his or her reasoning behind his or her moral actions, and collectively they will produce an infinite number of narratives, despite that their choices and actions that resulted with be the same – or at least indifferently so.

    All moral people are the same in word and deed, and all immoral people are different in word and deed.

    There is only one way to act and speak morally, and that is by reciprocity.

    Reciprocity may vary in context, but it does not vary across contexts. This is why the discipline of morality appears confusion. What consists of reciprocity on culture may not in the next. But across cultures it’s always the same, because there is no cultural context across cultures: just reciprocity.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-07 21:05:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633212259261456385

  • Funny how few women understand just how annoyingly logical most men are. Even if

    Funny how few women understand just how annoyingly logical most men are. Even if they can’t articulate it, they think logically. And this can be a problem. Because logic requires more knowledge than feelings do. So you the scope of that logic vary by context based on a man’s knowledge and experience. Within context men are extremely rational. Men specialize women generalize.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-07 17:58:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633165360466653196

  • Funny how few women understand just how annoyingly logical most men are. Even if

    Funny how few women understand just how annoyingly logical most men are. Even if they can’t articulate it, they think logically. And this can be a problem. Because logic requires more knowledge than feelings do. So you the scope of that logic vary by context based on a man’s knowledge and experience. Within context men are extremely rational. Men specialize women generalize.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-07 17:58:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633165360374464512

  • Mansplaining causality and consequence women don’t care about (systemizing, trut

    Mansplaining causality and consequence women don’t care about (systemizing, truth)
    -vs-
    Womansplaining experience men don’t care about (empathizing, approval)

    Like bots. No idea what either is doing.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-07 17:48:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633162772954378268

    Reply addressees: @ladyinabag1 @ScottAdamsSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633161937398689814