can you link me to the presentation? I don’t know what ‘truth’ he’s referring to?
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-19 03:04:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229965049332207616
Reply addressees: @TruthRespecter
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229964204448395265
—“It would also be cool to watch you debate theologians. Not pansy ones either but the few who are also high level scientists.”— A Friend
It’s a very simple argument: What is a theologian claiming: Good and wisdom, or True and demonstrable? What can they testify to? How can they demonstrate it? How can they warranty it? What is their incentive? What are the costs if they lie? Why is the world of science good for man, and the world of religion devolutionary for man? Why is science of man good and the actions of god evil? Why did christians jews and muslims create a dark age? Why are the churches full of our least competent people? Why did the churches fail to reform? Why did Europe abandon christianity? Why did the evangelical movement succeed and why are Americans leaving the church and dividing half secular and half evangelical? What should the church have done when theology was continuously defeated by science and proven false? Why did the church resist literacy of the people. Why did the church resist the printing of the bible in the people’s language? Why did the monastic orders arise if not in response tot he corruption of the church? Why did the church need the vikings to fight the crusades? Was christianity adopted or was it enforced in the past as islam is still enforced today? Did the christians destroy the ancient world, it’s monuments, it’s arts and letters, its academies, its accumulated knowledge, and instead of restoring roman order, aristocracy, literacy, and greek knowledge, drag Europe and the pagan peoples into dark ages? Why is the abrahamic method of deceit used by jews, christians and muslims used again by marxists, postmodernists, and feminist to repeat the same destruction of the old world to destroy the new – this time with false promise of economic and political reward instead of life after death and political reward? Why do theologians use the same arguments as the marxists, postmodernists, and feminists who destroy this world.
I have never found a theological argument I cannot defeat. We know too much now. Hence (a) there currently are, and have been, many gods. (b) all gods exist as information, (c) this information exists in the minds of man, (d) this information influences individual and group behavior (e) this behavior is often good, but vulnerable to conquest – which was the purpose of the church. (f) but as a consequence it produces an addiction response when threatened, and is defended by the abrahamic method of deceit rather than just the simple statement “I have faith that if I live my life by jesus’ teachings that my life, the life of those around me, the life of my polity, and of mankind, in this world, and in the next if there is one, will be better than if I did not.”
If you must argue your faith. you have none. Faith needs no argument. That is what it means to have faith.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 16:54:00 UTC
“The Case Against Reality”
The case for woo woo pseudoscience.
This is pseudoscientific nonsense.
We see actionable reality at actionable scale, using some pretty amazing instrumentation.
We ‘predict’ (imagine consequences from) our model of the world, that is not real. That’s simply a lack of discipline.
I can and have, and others can and have, explained consciousness – and with recent work it’s not even complicated.
I’d like to see the ‘math’ he’s talking about because I’m pretty sure he’s hand-waving.
He’s using Truth as an undefined ‘woo woo’ term (hand waving).
A fitness payoff (more correctly, return on cost of continuous production)
An organism that sees the world as it is (processes unnecessary information) that models the world independent of it’s capacity for action will be out-competed by an organism that reduces the world model necessary for action to the minimum necessary for action, and just competes on what works regardless of any model of the world. Well, this is only true to the point at which organisms can voluntarily cooperate – because there are no competitors to return on cooperation.
The camera obscura, and the camera, are a purely physical thing without consciousness. Yet we see what the camera records, without manipulating it. Sure, we can’t see all the same colors. Some of us see more than others. But that’s a difference in resolution of color not a difference in any ‘truth’ we see.
“Space and time don’t exist independent of our perception.” Well that’s demonstrably false. Space and time are vocabulary we use to describe what we perceive through sensory information. “There are other consciousnesses out there”.
OMG…. I would eat these morons for lunch.
https://youtu.be/dd6CQCbk2ro
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 15:17:00 UTC
“Misinformation” means ‘will lead you to conclusions that we don’t desire you to conclude’. https://t.co/s4MXkFtY4F
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 13:42:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229763107729428486
CRITICIZING AND REFORMING “LOGOS”
I disagree with every use of Logos I’ve ever seen.
As far as I know it’s original use meant ‘order identifiable and explicable through reason’. Which doesn’t tell us anything, unless we have some claim on the truth or falsehood of it.
Instead, civilizations evolve strategies (group competitive strategies), and persist them through metaphysical (unstated, presumed, unconscious) premises(laws of nature), and paradigms (plots), advanced by archetypes (characters) that anthropomorphize (mirror and amplify psychological or behavioral traits), which recursively reinforce the group strategy as if it is a law of nature.
For this reason I argue that metaphysics as a discipline ‘doesn’t exist’ so to speak and that there is only one testifiable answer to existence (realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, rational choice, reciprocity, transcendence) and that all else is fiction(parable, myth, literature) or fictionalism (theology, sophistry, pseudoscience) that either mirrors or does not mirror that most parsimonious testimony and strategy.
Man must act. To act he must remember. With memory he must predict futures to choose from to act upon. To choose from those futures he must reason. To continuously improve his choices continuously reducing costs, he must improve his reason. To reason at any scale other than the trivial requires forms of categorizing, organizing, predicting, and calculating. Language allows us to calculate increasing complexity. Cooperation lets us produce disproportionate returns on our actions. Cooperation on increasingly complex production requires collective ends within which to discover cooperative means. Narratives allow us to calculate collective means of cooperation within complex social groups. Complex social groups using the same narratives make the majority of tie-breaking decisions in favor of the group strategy. It is the countless decisions we make in favor of the group strategy when it costs little or nothing to do so, or at least the not-prohibitive to do so, that produce our group strategy more than does any organized and intentional production of commons.
So I don’t use “logos” because of it’s nonsense connotations. Instead I create an operational description of the world and therefore continue my war on nonsense terms from history that were invented to wow nonsensical ignorant people into the pretense that some presumed good was in fact true as well as presumed good.
See what I did there?
😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 09:11:00 UTC
أتحدث في الرياضيات والمنطق والعلوم والقانون – وفي الفلسفة لإنهاء الفلسفة. ؛) من أجل الحقيقة: الرياضيات والعلوم من أجل الطبيعة والاقتصاد والقانون للبشرية. للاختيار: الفلسفة. للحكمة ، عندما تفشل الفلسفة والقانون والعلوم: اللاهوت. ؛)
سلام.
I speak in mathematics, logic, science, and law – and in philosophy to end philosophy. 😉 For truth: Math and science for nature, economics and law for mankind. For choice: Philosophy. For wisdom, when philosophy, law, and science fail: theology. 😉
Peace.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 08:19:00 UTC
Reciprocity is the only reason for the strong and able to permit the weak and lacking ability. Truth is merely reciprocity in word. Conversely denying reciprocity would claim parasitism and predation were tolerable for some reason – like our middle class is exterminated today.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 00:17:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229560437403942912
Reply addressees: @SgtD_isBack
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229558131786682368
—“How would holocaust denial be dealt with under P-law?”– A Friend
[H]ow would any public speech be dealt with under P-law? In public, to the public, in matters public, suppression of the truth, or attempts at discovering the truth are prohibited under P-law. Conversely, falsehood is prohibited under P. The difference is that under P-law, speech in public, to the public, in matters public, is involuntarily warrantied. Including the dishonest use of statements masquerading as questions. So, public trial by propaganda, sophistry, and falsehood is illegal and expensive for any party since the cost of correcting public speech is prohibitively expensive. As such one can investigate, and report findings, like we do in any science, but we cannot make claims or imply claims without liability for error, bias, and deceit. Personally I’m far less concerned about this subject than I am the destruction and death by marxism, bolshevism, Leninism, maoism; the current civilizational destruction under postmodernism and denialism; and the ancient world’s destruction by judaism, Christianity and especially the billion dead under islam. So, sure, I tend to think the holocaust industry has gotten out of hand but I don’t know truth from falsehood myself, and I think it would be useful to discover what’s true and what’s false in order to stop both sides from propagandizing. I hate this topic. I try to avoid it at all costs. But I do my job. My job is to answer the tough questions. That’s what y’all pay me for with those donations.
—“How would holocaust denial be dealt with under P-law?”– A Friend
[H]ow would any public speech be dealt with under P-law? In public, to the public, in matters public, suppression of the truth, or attempts at discovering the truth are prohibited under P-law. Conversely, falsehood is prohibited under P. The difference is that under P-law, speech in public, to the public, in matters public, is involuntarily warrantied. Including the dishonest use of statements masquerading as questions. So, public trial by propaganda, sophistry, and falsehood is illegal and expensive for any party since the cost of correcting public speech is prohibitively expensive. As such one can investigate, and report findings, like we do in any science, but we cannot make claims or imply claims without liability for error, bias, and deceit. Personally I’m far less concerned about this subject than I am the destruction and death by marxism, bolshevism, Leninism, maoism; the current civilizational destruction under postmodernism and denialism; and the ancient world’s destruction by judaism, Christianity and especially the billion dead under islam. So, sure, I tend to think the holocaust industry has gotten out of hand but I don’t know truth from falsehood myself, and I think it would be useful to discover what’s true and what’s false in order to stop both sides from propagandizing. I hate this topic. I try to avoid it at all costs. But I do my job. My job is to answer the tough questions. That’s what y’all pay me for with those donations.
[R]ussell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is not a paradox, it’s an ill formed statement (Grammatical error) because it failed the test of continuously recursive ambiguity – which is what ‘grammar’ means: rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. Nearly all seemingly challenging philosophical questions play on some variation of the verb to be. In the case of the liar’s paradox in all its forms, it’s not a paradox it’s constructed ambiguity. Words don’t mean things. People mean things. They use language well or not well to state their meaning – or their deceit. A number is the name of a position, and beyond the base (glyphs) we use ‘Positional Naming’. We can name anything we choose with a position in an order just like we can name anything else. All that matters is that we all rely on the same names in the same order. Numbers exist as names. That’s it. Nothing else. Mathematics is ill-grounded (vulnerable to grammatical errors) because of sets (platonic, ideal, verbal) rather than operations (gears and geometry). If you explain all mathematics using positional names, gears, and geometry (as it was invented) you do not expose yourself to grammatical errors. The same is true of philosophical (verbal) statements. If you state all statements as promises, in operational prose, in complete sentences, without the ‘cheat’ (or lie) of the verb to be, you will have a very difficult time make grammatical errors. So the entire analytic program (sets) was a failure. So was the attempt to discover a via-positiva scientific method. This is because all epistemology is falsificationary and adversarial, with surviving truth propositions competing in networks of paradigms themselves in falsificationary and adversarial competition. Most of philosophy is little more than sophistry. (really) Everything that isn’t sophistry is in the domain of science including that science we call ‘grammar’. === COMMENTS ===
—“Not quite, as Godel presented a mathematical model of this phenomenon. You cannot reduce this to mere positivistic linguistics. On which point, are you not assuming Chomsky’s universal grammar with your definition of grammar? If so, this has been shown to be unempirical.”—Rik Storey
I didn’t say anything like that. I’m saying that he’s correct. I haven’t met anyone other than the author of the best book on the subject that understands the limit of Godel’s argument: (a) we identify new constant relations (experiences) (b) we invent new references (c) we invent new paradigms (d) we require grammars to talk about them (e) we can make ungrammatical statements. Godel said it. Turing said it. Kripke said it. So there is no closure to logic without appeal to the operational, empirical, limits and completeness, and even then there is only closure on falsification not justification. There is nothing positivistic in P. It’s purely falsificationary. Either it survives adverstarial competition by the terms stated in testimonialism or it doesn’t. If more than one does, then we just don’t know and nothing else can be said.
—“Oh very well. In that case, we must still follow Godel’s Platonism because of the assumptions we make in a purely sceptical and empirical worldview. That or nihilism are our two consistent options.”—Rik Storey
I can’t translate that into operational language. I don’t know what you mean. “…we must still follow Godel’s Platonism…” (Godel’s argument was operational, by applying the technique of pairing off (the foundation of mathematics in positional names) producing unique names for operations. Not all statements available in all grammar and vocabulary will be decidable within that grammar and vocabulary. And he did this for the special case of addition as an example, under the presumption the model would hold. But all he is saying is that no language is closed (other than first order logics maybe. Same is true even for math. We can write formulae that are descriptive but not deducible (we can’t write a proof)). and how does that relate to: “purely skeptical and empirical” (Permanently contingent, uncertain, cannot abandon continuous learning and adaptation?) and what do you mean by: “worldview” (means of understanding, predicting, decision making? paradigm?)
—“I made a similar argument on a Philosophy page. Russell’s paradox is just a domain error. A barber in a set of barbers or a tree in a forest. In the objective empirical world, it’s just a grammatical error. In the abstract world of numbers, a set of all sets must contain itself. “All” being transcendent can break the normal rules.”—Andrew M Gilmour
yep