Theme: Truth

  • 5) once you start looking at history as the battle between western truth and law

    5) once you start looking at history as the battle between western truth and law for aristocracy and it’s domestication of animal man, and semitic occultism and sophism for the expansion of production by the underclasses, the cycles of history are much more obvious.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 15:55:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035556659538657280

    Reply addressees: @ZeusHypatos

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035547155963027456


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035547155963027456

  • The standard of decidability in philosophy is excuse making (justificationism).

    The standard of decidability in philosophy is excuse making (justificationism).

    The standard of decidability in law is malincentive, evidence, and warranty. (less well articulated as Means, motive, opportunity, and evidence)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 13:58:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035527230213042181

  • NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM Scien

    NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM

    Science consists of performing due diligence such that we can warranty our testimony in operational terms each of… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=288981125032118&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 13:33:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035521025423888385

  • The purpose of a Sophism is to overload your reason such that you must appeal to

    The purpose of a Sophism is to overload your reason such that you must appeal to intuition for decidability. And intuition is even more negatively biased than cognitive biases.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 13:11:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035515489026486274

  • Work desperately to falsify your presumptions of the good, useful, and true. I h

    Work desperately to falsify your presumptions of the good, useful, and true. I have. And it is terribly painful. But it is how we evolve from animal lacking agency to man in possession of it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:52:00 UTC

  • THE SIMPLE ANSWER: Religion: what we can get away with? (mysticism), Philosophy:

    THE SIMPLE ANSWER:

    Religion: what we can get away with? (mysticism),

    Philosophy: what I can get away with? (sophism),

    -vs-

    Science: What we can’t get away with (warranty).

    Law: What you can’t get away with (liability).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:10:00 UTC

  • NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM Scien

    NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM

    Science consists of performing due diligence such that we can warranty our testimony in operational terms each of which is testable by the audience (jury). In other words, science (which emerged out of western customary law) In science we attempt to falsify until only truth existentially possible candidates remain.

    Philosophy as the term is used, and as the consists of justificationism. It is an attempt to bridge the legal(scientific), and Imaginary (fictional). Just as theology is an attempt to exit the legal(scientific). In other words, both philosophy and theology seek to circumvent the demand for testimony.

    Law/Science (falsification) > Philosophy (justification) > Theology justificationary fictionalism).

    In other words, you either practice law or your practice sophism (fraud) or you practice fictionalism (lying).

    The question is, if you can’t state your testimony in legal (scientific) language, then you either don’t know what you’re talking about or your lying for one reason or another, because you CAN’T DO OTHERWISE.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:33:00 UTC

  • Can you empirically state that gods to not exist?”— Well, yes, of course. As i

    —Can you empirically state that gods to not exist?”—

    Well, yes, of course. As in all things, evidence of externality is evidence of internality. This is how we defeat the fallacy that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Instead, evidence of externality is evidence of existence. In fact, all empirical science above and below observable scale is conducted by this method.

    Empirically means ‘observably and therefore measurably’. The purpose of empiricism is to suppress one’s ability to substitute imagination (non existence) for description (existence). The purpose of empirical (observation and measurement) is to ensure that you’re not adding something that isn’t there, not to insure that what you say is there is there. Ok? Justificationism dies hard in people. We have been trained by sophists both theological and philosophical and science defeats both of them slowly and with a great deal of effort.

    Can anyone testify to the existence of any supernatural entity at all, anywhere, at any point in time? We have had millions of people trying to find even one example, one instance, one event that cannot be explained as other than an attempted FRAUD by the person or persons making the claim.

    Can we however testify to the many crimes of priests, monotheistic religion, and the rapid increase in the quality of life before and after the existence of such fictions? We can identify the incentives why people lie to themselves, each other, and demonstrate the need for self induced chemical suppression of fear and uncertainty.

    Can we testify to the chemical reward of submission response being equal to the chemical rewards obtained when under the process of suggestion during narration?

    In other words, there is no evidence that such supernatural beings or forces exist. There is every evidence for intentional habituation of a submission response that produces a natural drug addiction. There is every evidence of universal acts of fraud when making claims of supernatural forces or beings. There is historical record of the incremental fabrication of religious falsehoods by the cumulative addition of greater and greater lies (religion is a ‘fish story’). There were political reasons for, and a historical record of, forcing these religions upon people who did not want them.

    Claims of the supernatural are inconsistent, non correspondent, operationally impossible, provide individual malincentives, provide interpersonal malincentives, evidence of overwhelmingly negative externalities, and are non testifiable, and non demonstrable.

    So we have incentives to lie, a record of the development of the lies, a record of the predations c

    Drug addicts have no agency and cannot help but defend their addictions. The fact that we are suggestiable, and open to such addiction through repetition is simply a biological fact. The fact that people exploit this vulnerability to create frauds and profit from them is simply a matter of the historical record.

    Religion, drugs, alcohol, escapism, idealism, snake oil. Occultism. They are all the same: frauds. Entertaining frauds. Entertaining frauds open to easy addiction through intentional repetition.

    A failure to develop emotional fitness. And a failure to develop intellectual fitness. And as a consequence a failure to develop physical and genetic fitness.

    Ergo, prosecuting theologians (Occultists), psedurodratioalists (sophists), pseudoscientists (frauds), drug dealers, fraudsters, libelers and slanderers is simply empirically beneficial in order to reduce the harmful externalities that accumulate due to addiction to their use.

    Evidence of externality is how we measure phenomenon. And the externality of sophism, occultism, and pseudoscience is measureable.

    Justificationary philosophy is just an attempt to justify lies.

    Just as pilpul is an attempt to justify lies.

    The the biology that creates demand for lies (false chemical rewards), the incentive to lie to the self, the incentive to lie to others, the results of their lying, are evidence of non existence of gods, and existence of deceit.

    There are many devices that allow us to create mindfulness, with exercise, ritual, and feast being the most effective means of providing our ‘reason’ a ‘vacation’.

    There are many that induce the ‘vacation’ of reason as well. The problem is these ‘vacations’ are addictive by artificial means, and produce externalities because of the extraordinary drive by addicts to preserve their means of obtaining vacations from reason (cognition).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:05:00 UTC

  • “When the world ends, do you think it’s gonna look like a lush paradise as God p

    —“When the world ends, do you think it’s gonna look like a lush paradise as God promised, or look like the planet is beyond ravaged?”—

    There are no gods, they are mere fictions men… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=288798845050346&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 01:29:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035338649934749696

  • No, Right Political Correctness Does Not Exist.

    Right political correctness? That’s typical deceit by Pilpul. Left political correctness (postmodern shaming) relies on falsehoods to mask unpleasant truths. Conservative shaming relies on truths to prevent involuntary transfers. Conservative morality suppresses imposition of costs (meritocracy), left pretense of morality attempts to justify involuntary transfer (theft). What could be obtained by trade (usually conformity for subsidy) is sought at a discount by shaming. In other words, it’s using Pilpul to cast the equivalency of shaming as an equivalence of actions – and that’s dishonest (actually, fraudulent). Conservative reciprocity versus classical liberal equality of opportunity, vs leftist equality of outcome, versus radical leftist harm to truth, duty, reciprocity, and markets as a means of rebellion against low social, sexual, economic, and political market value. It’s just class warfare between middle class (desirable) and underclass (undesirable) genes, with the left playing top and bottom expanding low trust against the high trust but shrinking middle.