Theme: Truth

  • So my suggestion is that you are trying to claim the legitimacy of science logic

    So my suggestion is that you are trying to claim the legitimacy of science logic and testimony in producing truth despite the limited intuition they use, instead of the legitimacy of using analogy to produce meaning specifically because of the intuition that they use.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-08-12 17:18:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425869409520922631

    Reply addressees: @Catholi64501821 @kanungo_priyam @iamnotasophist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425854812156043267

  • Trut. People want to avoid cognitive and adaptive costs. Truth is only necessary

    Trut. People want to avoid cognitive and adaptive costs. Truth is only necessary in order to coerce people into paying adaptive costs. The problem is that you can’t have the returns on adaptation without paying the costs. This is why civs failed by 800 and only europe didn’t.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-08-12 15:48:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425846562610204674

    Reply addressees: @ThruTheHayes

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425843621203484672

  • If you’re claiming ignorance, then you must ask, not tell. you told, so you’re a

    If you’re claiming ignorance, then you must ask, not tell. you told, so you’re asserting that you possess knowledge you clearly dont. As such you’re lying. And you’re exacerbating your lie by asking me to pay the cost of refuting your lie.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-08-12 15:30:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425842101275795460

    Reply addressees: @Dialogia2 @iamnotasophist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425841798119837702


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Dialogia2 @iamnotasophist Well,many things are not a matter of common knowledge. We wouldn’t need science, testimony, courts, if we relied on common knowledge.

    Either you possess sufficient knowledge of the field to disagree or you don’t. If you’re reliant on common knowledge you’re claiming ignorance.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1425841798119837702

  • Well,many things are not a matter of common knowledge. We wouldn’t need science,

    Well,many things are not a matter of common knowledge. We wouldn’t need science, testimony, courts, if we relied on common knowledge.

    Either you possess sufficient knowledge of the field to disagree or you don’t. If you’re reliant on common knowledge you’re claiming ignorance.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-08-12 15:29:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425841798119837702

    Reply addressees: @Dialogia2 @iamnotasophist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425820237233070081

  • An intellectually honest criticism would have to provide a competitive argument

    An intellectually honest criticism would have to provide a competitive argument on rational and scientific grounds that belief(fundamentalism) or imitation of belief(tradition) are necessary for social coherence between empathizers(F) and systematizers(M) on evidence of outcomes


    Source date (UTC): 2021-08-12 15:07:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425836285214740480

    Reply addressees: @Catholi64501821 @iamnotasophist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425835160180768770


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Catholi64501821 @iamnotasophist You used the Abrahamic(female) technique of Critique by GSRRM to create a false equivalency between empathizing(intuition) and systematizing(reason) by applying empathizing priorities to systematizing priorities, where atheists correctly criticize empathizers on empathic grounds.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1425835160180768770

  • Fundamentalism Is Limited to First-Order Claims

    FUNDAMENTALISM IS LIMITED TO FIRST-ORDER CLAIMS
    No I’m not anti-christian so to speak, I’m anti-Abrahmism.
    — “Some atheists claim that religion is a comfort to simple minds too weak to tolerate a world without God, but perhaps I wonder if it is the other way around. Perhaps atheism is a comfort to those minds too fearful of what the existence of God would entail.” —
     
    Well, we have the science. Religiosity is determined by the demand for empathy over systematizing. And the reasons for this are simple neural economy of in utero developmental differences. Smarter people tend to be system thinkers, so the same emotional need is filled differently.
     
    — “I could tell you that eyes are just the result of sense organs evolving over time. That wouldn’t then suggest that they don’t actually see anything.” —
     
    Technically speaking eyes don’t ‘see’ they just sense information. ‘Seeing’ requires the organization of that information into edges, textures, fragments, objects, spaces, and boundaries into a model to predict where muscles can move our bodies – that happens in the brain.
     
    — “Way to miss the point. You can describe the activity any way you like.” —
     
    Not missing the point, but making one over your head, that others will recognize: the three categories of fictionalism (deceit by pseudoscience(magic) pseudo reason(sophistry) and supernaturalism(occult)) make use of that method of argument-substitute, and Abrahamism teaches it.
     
    I told you it was over your head. 😉 All deceit is constructed from the same set of techniques that use ambiguity(vs identity), grammatical tolerance, incomplete sentences(vs testable transactions) to suggest relations by analogy that they cannot testify to (and do not exist).
     
    So for example the liars paradox isn’t. It’s a lie created by design using an incomplete statement that violates the grammatical law of continuous recursive disambiguation. Idiomatic speech relies heavily on suggestion vs description. Languages differ in precision. Cultures do too.
     
    And because cultures do too, cultures are more vulnerable to an index between aggregate (normative) intelligence, institutional evoluton, the precision of language. So English > German > Russian > Hindu > Semitic > Sinic differences in context vs precision.
     
    It’s actually a tragedy, in that (a) the church failed to produce an Augustine or Aquinas in response to Darwin, Maxwell et all, given that the scholastics had nearly united laws of nature natural law and catholic mythology (b) the Marxist, neo-Marxists, pomo, woke cult WON.
     
    And worse, that you idiots can’t comprehend that trend, and are ignorant of the coherence of the laws of nature, natural law, economics, and evolution = and worse aren’t taught grammar, logic, rhetoric, and grammatical suppression of the cognitive biases.
     
    And worse, you are ignorant of the fact that while Jesus increasingly appears to be a fictional character in the Semitic mythicist tradition consisting of combined wisdom literature from Egyptian and Persian traditions, that “Jesus” solved the problem of cooperation at scale.
     
    If one ‘sciences’ Christian ethics (not dogma) it is the ‘scientific’ solution to the prisoner’s dilemma of trust development in a heterogeneous polity – and requires training since it is contrary to all human instincts.
     
    The consequences? (a) reduce familism and tribalism, (b) prepare people for middle-class ethics (trade), (c) provide a means for the lower classes to find status in Indo-European civilization which treats the lower classes as domesticated animals – integrating them into society.
     
    So I don’t mind that you’re an ignorant peasant that obsesses about nonsense if the consequence is that you behave as the ‘programmers’ intended you to behave. I only mind when you use Abrahamic deceit to pretend intellectual status instead of the social moral status it produces.
     
    As such Abrahamic theology is just wisdom literature that tells you how to behave. This is a first-order wisdom. It does not tolerate second-order deduction, induction, or abduction. It is not a system of reason or science, it is a system of analogy. To say otherwise is lying.
     
    I like to share knowledge and understanding with those capable of using it. You are just a tool that provides a frame for the distribution of that knowledge. You don’t matter other than that you’re a foil. This is why you have no meaning in life and your religion is dying.
  • Fundamentalism Is Limited to First-Order Claims

    FUNDAMENTALISM IS LIMITED TO FIRST-ORDER CLAIMS
    No I’m not anti-christian so to speak, I’m anti-Abrahmism.
    — “Some atheists claim that religion is a comfort to simple minds too weak to tolerate a world without God, but perhaps I wonder if it is the other way around. Perhaps atheism is a comfort to those minds too fearful of what the existence of God would entail.” —
     
    Well, we have the science. Religiosity is determined by the demand for empathy over systematizing. And the reasons for this are simple neural economy of in utero developmental differences. Smarter people tend to be system thinkers, so the same emotional need is filled differently.
     
    — “I could tell you that eyes are just the result of sense organs evolving over time. That wouldn’t then suggest that they don’t actually see anything.” —
     
    Technically speaking eyes don’t ‘see’ they just sense information. ‘Seeing’ requires the organization of that information into edges, textures, fragments, objects, spaces, and boundaries into a model to predict where muscles can move our bodies – that happens in the brain.
     
    — “Way to miss the point. You can describe the activity any way you like.” —
     
    Not missing the point, but making one over your head, that others will recognize: the three categories of fictionalism (deceit by pseudoscience(magic) pseudo reason(sophistry) and supernaturalism(occult)) make use of that method of argument-substitute, and Abrahamism teaches it.
     
    I told you it was over your head. 😉 All deceit is constructed from the same set of techniques that use ambiguity(vs identity), grammatical tolerance, incomplete sentences(vs testable transactions) to suggest relations by analogy that they cannot testify to (and do not exist).
     
    So for example the liars paradox isn’t. It’s a lie created by design using an incomplete statement that violates the grammatical law of continuous recursive disambiguation. Idiomatic speech relies heavily on suggestion vs description. Languages differ in precision. Cultures do too.
     
    And because cultures do too, cultures are more vulnerable to an index between aggregate (normative) intelligence, institutional evoluton, the precision of language. So English > German > Russian > Hindu > Semitic > Sinic differences in context vs precision.
     
    It’s actually a tragedy, in that (a) the church failed to produce an Augustine or Aquinas in response to Darwin, Maxwell et all, given that the scholastics had nearly united laws of nature natural law and catholic mythology (b) the Marxist, neo-Marxists, pomo, woke cult WON.
     
    And worse, that you idiots can’t comprehend that trend, and are ignorant of the coherence of the laws of nature, natural law, economics, and evolution = and worse aren’t taught grammar, logic, rhetoric, and grammatical suppression of the cognitive biases.
     
    And worse, you are ignorant of the fact that while Jesus increasingly appears to be a fictional character in the Semitic mythicist tradition consisting of combined wisdom literature from Egyptian and Persian traditions, that “Jesus” solved the problem of cooperation at scale.
     
    If one ‘sciences’ Christian ethics (not dogma) it is the ‘scientific’ solution to the prisoner’s dilemma of trust development in a heterogeneous polity – and requires training since it is contrary to all human instincts.
     
    The consequences? (a) reduce familism and tribalism, (b) prepare people for middle-class ethics (trade), (c) provide a means for the lower classes to find status in Indo-European civilization which treats the lower classes as domesticated animals – integrating them into society.
     
    So I don’t mind that you’re an ignorant peasant that obsesses about nonsense if the consequence is that you behave as the ‘programmers’ intended you to behave. I only mind when you use Abrahamic deceit to pretend intellectual status instead of the social moral status it produces.
     
    As such Abrahamic theology is just wisdom literature that tells you how to behave. This is a first-order wisdom. It does not tolerate second-order deduction, induction, or abduction. It is not a system of reason or science, it is a system of analogy. To say otherwise is lying.
     
    I like to share knowledge and understanding with those capable of using it. You are just a tool that provides a frame for the distribution of that knowledge. You don’t matter other than that you’re a foil. This is why you have no meaning in life and your religion is dying.
  • So for example the liars paradox isn’t. It’s a lie created by design using incom

    So for example the liars paradox isn’t. It’s a lie created by design using incomplete statement that violates the grammatical law of continuous recursive disambiguation. Idiomatic speech relies heavily on suggestion vs description. Languages differ in precision. Cultures do too.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-08-12 14:11:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425822144492154880

    Reply addressees: @Catholi64501821 @iamnotasophist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425820336319344640

  • Oh, btw, that was a very good sugestion. But by doing so I satisfy those who agr

    Oh, btw, that was a very good sugestion. But by doing so I satisfy those who agree with us but ensure that everyone who doesn’t won’t finish the first chapter.
    Unlike math, logic, and physical science, people reject social science that correctly positions them in a hierarchy.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-08-12 14:05:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425820757477756929

    Reply addressees: @NoahRevoy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425573127468244993

  • Not missing the point, but making one over your head, that others will recognize

    Not missing the point, but making one over your head, that others will recognize: the three categories of fictionalism (deceit by pseudoscience(magic) pseudoreason(sophistry) and supernaturalism(occult)) make use of that method of argument-substitute, and Abrahamism teaches it.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-08-12 14:02:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425820109856288768

    Reply addressees: @Catholi64501821 @iamnotasophist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1425818848394203136