Theme: Truth

  • I’m about three standard deviations above you in IQ, a long standing member of t

    I’m about three standard deviations above you in IQ, a long standing member of the 1%, and I specialize in logic, truth, ethics, law, economics, and politics. So yes, you are equipped for adult conversation and it would sound incomprehensible to you. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-30 19:55:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1300160290525503489

    Reply addressees: @AngieNOLA @jimkelly522 @Brandi545 @RealJamesWoods

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1300159188165898242

  • FIRST DAY OF A LOGIC COURSE (from comments I made on a paper) A few suggestions,

    FIRST DAY OF A LOGIC COURSE

    (from comments I made on a paper)

    A few suggestions, that give the students context where that context limits the majority of student errors not only in class but throughout life.

    1) The sciences consist of the formal sciences we call the Logics, the Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences(psychology, and sociology).

    2) Most of us are familiar of the logic of positions we call mathematics and its application to measurements; and the logic of operations, we call algorithms, programming, procedures, or the logic of sequential actions in time, and in addition, we use the general term ‘logic’ of the logic of sets applied more broadly language; So within the formal sciences that we call the logics, we use a least the logic of one property in measurement, the logic of more properties in sequences of operations, and the logic of speech using words that are unlimited, in a spectrum of increasing complexity.

    3) These methodologies in formal science are possible because of the human logical facility. The human logical facility consists of neurological tests of the spectrum of relations that are constant, inconstant, contingent, potential, contradictory, and non-sensical relations that are perceivable by the spectrum of physical sensation, intuitionistic auto-association we call perception, and the sequence of thought we call dreaming, daydreaming thinking, reasoning, rationalism (“logic”), calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs), and computation.

    4) While the human brain operates in massively parallel competition for coherence between past present and future, describing our internal thoughts requires serial communication by signs or speech. When we serially communicate using signs or speech, we depend on rules we call ‘grammars’. Humans evolved not only the logical facility by massive parallel competition, we evolved a grammar facility to organize and communicate all or part of the experience that results. This grammar vacility and what we call rules of grammar, consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. We use serial languag, grammatical rules of continuous recursive disambiguation, to suggest meaning to others, by causing them to continuously recursively predict what we experience (mean). The audience uses those same rules of grammar to predict what the speaker intends to convey. The audience then conveys understanding, and either asks for, or is given, further disambiguation, until both parties satisfy the need (demand) for disambiguity.In logic we refer to this more general term prediction as inference. And the discipline of logic as rules of inference.

    5) Inferences (predictions) are steps in reasoning, beginning with premises and ending with conclusions. We divide inference into the sequence: deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction is inference that predict logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true. Induction is the inference (prediction) from particular premises to a universal conclusion. Abduction is the inference (prediction) to the best explanation. But that spectrum of deduction, induction, and abduction describes only the sufficiency of information we have to work with, as three points on a continuuum.

    6) In this course, we are largely interested in language and we the logic of sets, with the laws of valid (not false) inference (prediction), under the general label we conventionally refer to as “logic”, using that human faculty of reason we call “rationalism”(limiting our reasoning to rules of logic).

    7) We apply the logic of sets to language to test the truth, falsehood, or undecidability of propositions. When we say a statement or set of statements is false, they are inconsistent or contradictory. When we say a statement or set of statements is true, we mean the set of properties is internally consistent.

    When we say a statement is or set of statements is contingent, it is dependent on information external to the statement. And when we say that a statement is undecidable, the properties are insufficient to determine consistency – which means ambiguous.

    8) When we say a statement or set of statements is true we mean it satisfies both the demand for disambiguity, and the demand for infallibility in the context – meaning it’s coherent with and consistent and sufficient for infallibility within the broader context.

    9) The spectrum of truth claims ranges from tautological – meaningless, to ideal – meaning the testimony we would give if we were omniscient; to testifiable – meaning that one has done due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit; to honest – meaning the promise that one does not deceive, obscure, load, frame, or fictionalize.

    10) And people frequently make truth claims using a spectrum of paradigms using analogies to experience from the most general to the most specific:

    Theological (allegorical, supernatural)

    Fictional-Mythical (Allegorical natural-supernormal)

    Psychological (and Moral)

    Rational (Kantian)

    Historical (analogical)

    Descriptive (ordinary langauge).

    Empirical (observable)

    Ratio-empirical ( scientific )

    Operational (testifiable, testimony)

    11) Despite the efforts of hundreds if not thousands of great thinkers, the result of the 19th and 20th-century research is that set logic applied to human speech is largely a falsification rather than justificationary system of thought. In other words, we tend to prove very little of consequence, but we falsify the infinity of falsehoods by ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. And this is the principle function of study of the logics: to improve our ability to identify ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, and to seek sufficiently unambiguous, sufficiently infallible, sufficiently testifiable knowledge despite the many human failings.

    12) So this is the contetext of logic that we will cover in this course, and the primary benefit to you, in your life, will be the advntage of freedom from falsehoods by ignorance, error, bais and deciet.

    In my understanding, logic as it is taught in university as the logic of sets and inference is as archaic as scriptural interpretation, textual interpretation, and legal interpretation that it evolved from. And that between mathematics and set logic we are better off studying operational logic since it is operational logic that elininates the limits of set logic.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-29 12:40:00 UTC

  • AFAIK: Theology (Strategy/Imagination) > Philosophy (Choice/Ideal) > Law(Recipro

    AFAIK: Theology (Strategy/Imagination) > Philosophy (Choice/Ideal) > Law(Reciprocity/Action) > Science (Truth/Testimony)

    Reply addressees: @Nationalist7346 @TruthQuest11

  • AFAIK: Theology (Strategy/Imagination) > Philosophy (Choice/Ideal) > Law(Recipro

    AFAIK: Theology (Strategy/Imagination) > Philosophy (Choice/Ideal) > Law(Reciprocity/Action) > Science (Truth/Testimony)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-27 23:34:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1299128252078977032

    Reply addressees: @Nationalist7346 @TruthQuest11

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1299127217620951041

  • Most cases are decided by sympathy and empathy: tests of subjectivity incentives

    Most cases are decided by sympathy and empathy: tests of subjectivity incentives. These are not determined by facts but by predictions that construct something between an intuition and an imaginary narrative from very few facts if any. Lie detection would be far more useful.

    Reply addressees: @judicialist

  • Most cases are decided by sympathy and empathy: tests of subjectivity incentives

    Most cases are decided by sympathy and empathy: tests of subjectivity incentives. These are not determined by facts but by predictions that construct something between an intuition and an imaginary narrative from very few facts if any. Lie detection would be far more useful.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-26 17:08:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1298668586790203394

    Reply addressees: @judicialist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1298634830851256321

  • “I didn’t know who you were until July 4th when I was covering the second amendm

    —“I didn’t know who you were until July 4th when I was covering the second amendment rally in Richmond, VA. Ever since I’ve been reading your literature. What I’ve gathered is that Propertarianism is just a veiled version of Nazism.”—
    Which is what all shallow idiots presume.

    P is an unveiled formalization of the founding fathers and their attempt at rule of law by natural law in what was an experiment in creating a superior society free of aristocracy and priesthood as well as ‘people of low character’: the peasantry.

    If the Nazis adopted science in some ways and threw it out the windown in others, that does not mean that all linquistic, psychological, social, science used by nazis is false, any more than it means any science adopted by various religions transfers truth value to religion.

    Science is science. Law adjudicates by science. Whether you object to it or not has no meaning.

    Once kowing the truth we can pursue solutions. Without knowing it we avoid them. Trade works universally.

    My work is complex in construction but very simple in application: Reciprocity in truth word and deed produces markets in everything, such that people pay the cost and consequence of decisions good and bad: evolution.

    This means our only power over one another is trades, and that the purpose of govenrment is to limit us to trades. And conversely that circumvention of trades is always and everywhere the initiation of violence, predation, or parasitism directly or indirectly.

    How would you solve the problems of the day through trades?

    How would you end the second dark age this time by marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, and feminism?

    By lying about it? Or by the truth?

    I use truth.

    If you don’t then you no better than the communists, islamists, and nazis.
    So, ask yourself instead “what are you trying to lie cheat and steal in order to claim you are working in the greater good?”


    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-24 23:53:36 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/104747054932855813

  • (PS: I don’t always understand me either. Imagine you’re trying to do a mathemat

    (PS: I don’t always understand me either. Imagine you’re trying to do a mathematical proof, and you try something only to discover something else. You discover that you just intuited something smart, and wrote it down, and afterward discovering the depth of it. …

    Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11

  • (PS: I don’t always understand me either. Imagine you’re trying to do a mathemat

    (PS: I don’t always understand me either. Imagine you’re trying to do a mathematical proof, and you try something only to discover something else. You discover that you just intuited something smart, and wrote it down, and afterward discovering the depth of it. …


    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-22 20:09:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297264775517347841

    Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1297260223988731904

  • @alternative_right Excellent response. (and the only correct one). One is either

    @alternative_right Excellent response. (and the only correct one). One is either in concert with nature or in denial of it. This is an excellent illustration of the problem: is on arrogant or humble in conforming to nature’s demands, or is one arrogant or humble in conforming to mans wishes? It depends on who loses. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-22 18:03:21 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/104734353088431235