Theme: Truth

  • Man is the measure of all things perceivable by man. The question is, can that w

    Man is the measure of all things perceivable by man. The question is, can that which is perceivable be reduced to language when even humans struggle with it. Yet what is available to auto association in humans is far beyond that demonstrated by the LLMs.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-11 06:43:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1889203479404794061

    Reply addressees: @SCTempo @dwarkesh_sp

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1889199816489783305



    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    THE TRANSFORMER LIMITATION IN NEUROSCIENTIFIC PROSE:
    Correct. Or stated in neuroscience, (apologies if this is too dense to easily interpret), the prompt (language) invokes a set of relations (text equivalent of episodic memories) but it’s network (auto-associative memory) of referents is of lower resolution than that of humans (facets, objects, spaces, places, locations, actors, generalizations, sequences, abstractions, causal relations, valences) is limited to those in the language in the prompt (word-world model) and not the human intuitionistic model (sense-perception-embodiment world model) where abstractions (first principles, logical associations) from the entire corpus of extant and yet unstated or unknown abstractions (causal relations, valences) and first principles (logical relations in sense-perception world model) are associated at levels from neural microcolums to regions to networks to a continuous stream of network adaptations.
    As such the world model of language (word-world model) is one of low precision, is absent embodiment, spatio-temporal, and operational word models (precision) necessary for pattern identification (logical association) of that which is yet UNSTATED in language in sufficient density as to cause association with the model (word-world model) produced in the LLM by the prompt.
    I work on this issue and this is why the prompt must include the logical relation you’re asking the LLM to consider because it cannot make that connection alone.
    Now, I see this as a scaling problem on one hand, meaning one of the necessity of embodiment, spatio-temporal, and operational abstractions in the model, and that the attention must be recursive (wayfinding) in order to cover the field of associations that the hierarchical temporal memory of the brain so easily performs.
    On the other hand whether this problem is solvable within the LLM model by increases in the emergence we’ve seen of late is hard for me to predict. In the meantime we are left with prompts and traditional pseudocode or software (chain of thought) to control that which it cannot on it’s own, as it’s still limited to the equivalent of a synthesizing search engine otherwise.
    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    NLI

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1889199816489783305

  • RT @curtdoolittle: HIGH CIVILIZATION REQUIRES TRUTH, AND TRUTH REQUIRES IQ, AND

    RT @curtdoolittle: HIGH CIVILIZATION REQUIRES TRUTH, AND TRUTH REQUIRES IQ, AND THE DISPOSITION AND ABILITY ARE RARE
    And we are getting dum…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-06 04:03:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1887351274645168616

  • In Curt Doolittle’s Operationalism, his emphasis is the testifiability of claims

    In Curt Doolittle’s Operationalism, his emphasis is the testifiability of claims, and the distinction between philosophy and science can be framed operationally by examining their premises, operations, and results across the dimensions of permissible and impermissible references and the instrumentation ignored, used, or required:

    1. Premises
    Philosophy:
    Permissible References: Abstract, speculative, and non-empirical references are permissible. Philosophy often allows for exploration of imaginable possibilities unconstrained by empirical testability.
    Impermissible References: Philosophy generally avoids commitments to specific empirical facts unless required for argumentation, preferring logical consistency and coherence.
    Instrumentation Required:Cognitive-Perceptual: Uses introspection, imagination, and reasoning.
    Verbal: Relies on linguistic and conceptual constructs for articulation.
    Logical: Demands internal consistency and coherence but may not require external correspondence.

    Science:
    Permissible References: Empirical observations and testable hypotheses. Science permits only references that can be operationalized and empirically validated.
    Impermissible References: Speculative, unverifiable claims, or those lacking falsifiability.
    Instrumentation Required:Physical: Uses empirical tools to measure and test phenomena.
    Cognitive-Perceptual: Focuses on observational accuracy and repeatability.
    Logical and Verbal: Requires coherence but also external correspondence (truth by survival of testing).

    2. Operations
    Philosophy:
    Methods Used:
    Logical reasoning and argumentation.
    Conceptual analysis and synthesis.
    Examination of foundational assumptions, often without requiring empirical evidence.

    Instrumentation:
    Primarily verbal and logical tools.
    Relies on internal consistency, coherence, and the capacity to interpret meaning.

    Result:
    Generates frameworks, questions, and first principles, often focusing on “what is imaginable” or “what is possible.”

    Science:
    Methods Used:
    Hypothesis generation, experimental testing, and observation.
    Operationalization of abstract concepts into measurable phenomena.
    Iterative falsification and empirical validation.

    Instrumentation:
    Requires physical tools (e.g., instruments for measurement).
    Uses verbal and logical tools but anchors them in empirical data.

    Result:
    Produces laws, theories, and models validated by empirical testing, focusing on “what survives testing and falsification.”

    3. Results

    Philosophy:
    Output: Conceptual frameworks, ethical systems, definitions, and foundational principles.
    Validation: Internal coherence and practical applicability in reasoning or guiding action.
    Scope: Unbounded, addressing questions of meaning, existence, ethics, and universals without requiring immediate correspondence to empirical reality.

    Science:
    Output: Testable theories, predictive models, and empirical laws.
    Validation: Survives empirical testing and falsification.
    Scope: Constrained by empirical testability, addressing questions about the nature of observable phenomena and their causal relationships.

    Differences in Premise, Operation, and Result
    Premise:
    Philosophy begins with conceptual possibility and explores the limits of the imaginable and logical.
    Science begins with empirical possibility, constrained by observable and measurable phenomena.

    Operation:
    Philosophy uses cognitive-perceptual and verbal-logical instrumentation to explore abstract dimensions.
    Science requires physical instrumentation and operational definitions to test causal relationships.

    Result:
    Philosophy produces frameworks and questions applicable to diverse contexts but not necessarily empirically verifiable.
    Science produces empirically validated knowledge that explains, predicts, and survives falsification under operational and physical constraints.

    Key Complementarity:
    Philosophy generates universalizable constructs and questions of meaning that guide inquiry, including scientific questions.
    Science tests causal constructs within empirical limits, refining and operationalizing philosophical premises into practical models.

    Together, they explore the possible, testable, and survivable, forming an iterative process where philosophy provides the imaginative scope, and science refines the reducible into actionable knowledge.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-04 01:45:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1886591963195170816

  • RT @Elton_Sahlberg: @curtdoolittle The Masculine Cognition scans sentences for u

    RT @Elton_Sahlberg: @curtdoolittle The Masculine Cognition scans sentences for useful content (Truth) and the Feminine Cognition scans sent…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-02 20:06:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1886144223990391123

  • Yes. This is correct. MALE: Truth before face (Trait disagreeableness) FEMALE: F

    Yes. This is correct.
    MALE: Truth before face (Trait disagreeableness)
    FEMALE: Face before truth (Trait agreeableness)
    As I’ve illustrated in depth, the feminine intuition is incompatible with the western demand for truth before face, and duty-to-the-commons before self that is…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-01 02:53:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1885521776945574054

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1885520667736514840

  • RT @NoahRevoy: Even in the human brain lying (that’s what woke is) requires more

    RT @NoahRevoy: Even in the human brain lying (that’s what woke is) requires more brain cycles than telling the truth.

    In an AI that’s mult…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-29 13:26:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1884593941380780541

  • (Belief in God) Q: –“@curtdoolittle are you an atheist or do you believe in the

    (Belief in God)
    Q: –“@curtdoolittle are you an atheist or do you believe in the God of whatever faith you are a part of?”–

    I am able to separate my job which is judicial and is extremely uncommon, from my psychological needs which are the same as every other human. I do not find difficulty with this dualism. Most do.

    I was raised with familial puritanical church of england ethics in the catholic church and graduated from a private catholic high school taught by Xaverian brothers. I am, like most europeans a synthesis of european and christian traditions. And I see those traditions as european aristocratic vs semitic slave-peasant as do most philosophers. We define our gods as we need to.

    As such I am both Pagan: Natural and Ancestor ‘worship’ and christian: extension of kinship love to all.

    Personally, I talk to god every day. The difference is I don’t claim I have knowledge of that god’s mode of existence, and I don’t find that god is analogous to any in the abrahamic or other religions (even if closest to Tyr or Zeus). And I don’t submit to that god because in the european aristocratic tradition it is our job to ascend into demigods and gods ourselves. So, my version of god is more of ‘the universe is god and the laws of the universe are his laws and how I discourse with that god is unknown and irrelevant to me.

    The result is that the Natural Law is in fact, the will of god or gods or nature, if will it possesses. Otherwise it is just the law of the universe. And I explain that law more so than all in history combined. Because I stand on the shoulders of those great men of history beginning with Aristotle and Democritus. 😉

    See Oath of Transcendent man:
    https://t.co/hMytVaRgha

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @PlayerJuan11


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-28 18:53:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1884313852416004096

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1884306307232289092

  • I don’t even know any worth mentioning, and I’m from the Popper-Kuhn Critical Ra

    I don’t even know any worth mentioning, and I’m from the Popper-Kuhn Critical Rationalist faction – which is pretty solid by comparison to the rest. :(. Personally I think philosophy is dead for other than improving argumentation. But then I’m sure to be categorized as a…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-28 18:02:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1884300957057704234

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1884295534665748761

  • PS: I love discourse and some debate, as long as (a) we’re both seeking to under

    PS: I love discourse and some debate, as long as (a) we’re both seeking to understand (b) it’s intellectually honest (c) and not a waste of my time. None of those three requirements is common in social media, and all three in a context is … let’s just say too infrequent. Conversely with fellow academics the desire to seek to understand, especially anything that generates conflict, is taboo, or tangential is met with intellectual dishonesty, avoiding seeking to understand, and all too often a waste of my time – even when I use my most deferential tone.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-28 17:52:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1884298420434952192

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: THE EDGES All information that’s worth anything on the interne

    RT @ThruTheHayes: THE EDGES

    All information that’s worth anything on the internet comes from the edges.

    None of the information from the…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-27 20:49:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1883980579416465661