Theme: Truth

  • Yes, although for example, last night he used argumentation ethics in error to d

    Yes, although for example, last night he used argumentation ethics in error to do that. People don’t correct you out of a universal good or truth – but to deny your means of persuading or coerce them. Hoppe makes similar errors.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 14:15:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244267011909320705

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244266440250863616

  • I’m sure JF is a good researcher, but the purpose of learning philosophy is deve

    I’m sure JF is a good researcher, but the purpose of learning philosophy is developing a skill in how not to err. After that you need to know enough fields not to err. Knowing math, physics, cog sci, economics, law, and history is hard. … So people rarely learn not to err.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 13:50:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244260676962586626

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244260080016556033


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @LLaddon You can try to nudge an opiner and the audience a bit but you can’t really educate them. And thinking about the big questions is hard enough, discussing them with those who don’t or can’t is far harder, and in my case also trying to get people to think in systems is impossible.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1244260080016556033

  • SUMMARY OF JFG/DOOLITTLE ON THE MOLYNEUX DEBATE That was fun. I always enjoy JF.

    SUMMARY OF JFG/DOOLITTLE ON THE MOLYNEUX DEBATE

    That was fun. I always enjoy JF. The public isn’t used to seeing how philosophy, law, science and math are done between practitioners – tediously precisely. I realize this kind of thing is difficult for the audience. And JF has to keep the audience engaged. Between my long expositions and jf’s audience representation it required a little cat herding on my part. That said, I think we got there.

    SUMMARY:

    (a) we are born with a distribution of moral preferences (Demand for treatment from others, and resistance to demands from other)s,

    (b) we exercise our moral preferences in a market competition for cooperation wherein we discover cooperation (sexual, social, economic, political, military) with people that satisfy our moral preferences,

    (c) groups of people increase in a division of labor and as they do so converge on moral norms (requirements for cooperation) that allow them to cooperatively succeed in their geographic, demographic, economic, institutional, and military conditions – and some of these they institute as laws (punishments for violations)

    (d) across human groups we converge on the same underlying rule within each of those different markets (e) that rule is reciprocity that preserves cooperation and prevents retaliation, within the limits of proportionality that cause members to defect.

    (e) but moral rules are only useful in creating and preserving cooperation and the outsized returns on cooperation,

    (f) and cooperation must be more beneficial than parasitism(free riding, black markets, rent seeking, corruption etc), and predation (conquest).

    (g) all human organizations of all kinds seek the minimum morality, maximum free riding, rent seeking, and corruption until there is insufficient free capital to incentivize adjustment to shocks, and the civilization collapses

    (h) so there is no moral rule outside of the utility of cooperation because ‘moral’ can only mean ‘within the limits of reciprocity and proportionality among those of us cooperating’. There is no morality in war.

    (i) the only universal moral rule is reciprocity – do not impose costs, including risks, directly or indirectly upon the demonstrated interests of others in your group.

    (j) there are no possible via positiva universal moral statements. Anything that is not immoral (reciprocal) is moral. People who claim otherwise are engaging in an act of fraud by claiming their preference must be paid for by others irreciprocally. They claim debts or injustice when there is none.

    SERIES:

    Evil < Criminal < Unethical < Immoral < Amoral > Moral > Ethical > Virtuous > Righteous

    CLOSING

    As such, JF was correct at the personal level in that all individuals demonstrate variation in moral demand of others;;

    And SM was half right at the socio-political level, and half right at the universal level, but stated the via positiva preference for a good instead of via negativa prohibition on the bad.

    In this sense both parties, adopting ideal types, rather than the use of series, talked past each other.

    P-law makes use of disambiguation through “operationalism, competition, and serialization’, and relies on the logic of incentives, supply and demand.

    We convert psychological , social, legal and political concepts into economic terms to take advantage of the minimization of error that results, at the expense of more reasoning and less intuiting.

    -Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 13:27:00 UTC

  • NO, MORALITY ISN’T SUBJECTIVE PER SE – JUST MINOR VARIATION IN IT IS. —“…JFG

    NO, MORALITY ISN’T SUBJECTIVE PER SE – JUST MINOR VARIATION IN IT IS.

    —“…JFG claimed that morality is subjective entirely…”—

    Well, I corrected him. Personal moral bias is subjective. We compete with others in a market of moral biases. We converge to reciprocity within our local geographic, demographic, familial, social, economic, and political organizations, and we absolutely converge on reciprocity in international affairs where there is no means of enforcement other than boycott, trade war, or war.

    Personal Moral Bias > Local Market Moral Bias > World Market Moral bias.

    We rarely if ever find people who do not engage in reciprocity within the limits of proportionality who are not outcast or imprisoned or worse.

    SO it’s false that we do not practice reciprocity. We just limit the scope of reciprocity that we take to market to avoid others, cooperate with others, or prey upon others.

    But the differences in our scopes of reciprocity narrow as we approach the global BECAUSE THE UTILITY OF OF OUR CHOICE DECLINES WITH SCALE.

    Sociopaths often practice reciprocity just fine. Because it’s useful. Empathics practice reciprocity just fine, because they intuit it. The difference is that the first is by experience and reason, the second is by biological intuition.

    A cooperative species – meaning one that can select whether to cooperate or not – cannot survive without moral intuition.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 11:44:00 UTC

  • No, your thoughts are inconsequential because you haven’t developed the intellec

    No, your thoughts are inconsequential because you haven’t developed the intellectual discipline to place truth before intuition.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 21:56:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244020536360960001

    Reply addressees: @spacepencilcase

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244019888051621891

  • And once you grasp the technique you can move on to causality. Can you develop s

    And once you grasp the technique you can move on to causality. Can you develop s

    And once you grasp the technique you can move on to causality.

    Can you develop sufficient agency to put truth before emotion? Unlikely. https://t.co/RQ8p9fMUmk


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 21:54:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244020105459249152

    Reply addressees: @spacepencilcase

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244019261053571073


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @spacepencilcase Here. Let me educate you a bit.
    It’s entry level. You might be able to manage it. https://t.co/HQPyZH0e3W

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1244019261053571073

  • Correction: Statment’s aren’t true or false. People speak incoherently, undecida

    Correction:

    Statment’s aren’t true or false. People speak incoherently, undecidably, untestifiably, truthfully, or falsely. Whether ideally true we don’t know. And tautologically is meaningless. Plato and Mathematical Platonism Poison Reason to this day.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 01:49:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243716782298476555

    Reply addressees: @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243715870070882304


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K This is the difference between scriptural and legal interpretation (excuse making) under an author’s anonymity, rather than testimony.

    Statment’s aren’t true or false.
    People speak incoherently, undecidably, truthfully, or falsely.

    (The disease of mathematics and platonism.)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243715870070882304

  • Statment’s aren’t true or false. People speak incoherently, undecidably, untesti

    Statment’s aren’t true or false. People speak incoherently, undecidably, untestifiably, truthfully, or falsely. Plato and Mathematical Platonism Poison Reason to this day.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 01:48:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243716448876363776

  • This is the difference between scriptural and legal interpretation (excuse makin

    This is the difference between scriptural and legal interpretation (excuse making) under an author’s anonymity, rather than testimony.

    Statment’s aren’t true or false.
    People speak incoherently, undecidably, truthfully, or falsely.

    (The disease of mathematics and platonism.)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 01:45:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243715870070882304

    Reply addressees: @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243715248529555456


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K But because both statements are written by human intention using incomplete (grammatically incorrect) statements, absent a subject, they deceptions. The deception is made possible by appeal to suggestion, requiring inference. All sophisms use this technique.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243715248529555456

  • “This statement is testifiable” is undecidable. “Everything in this box is a lie

    “This statement is testifiable” is undecidable.
    “Everything in this box is a lie” is undecidable.
    “I promise that what i’m stating by (null) is testifiable”
    “I promise the statement that I have written in this box (nul) is a lie” is undecidable.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 01:41:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243714869377011712

    Reply addressees: @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243714815102681094


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K Testimony may be truthful, untruthful, false, or undecidable. Not just true or false.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243714815102681094