It’s actually pretty easy: 1) Empirically, (in-group) law evolved everywhere using a test of reciprocity. Even norms demand reciprocity. All that differs is the local organization of rights and obligations that produce various forms of reciprocity under various group evolutionary strategies. 2) Empirically, (out-group) international law, that is insulated by differences as a compromise between differences is reducible to reciprocity. 3) Logically, (internal consistency) all questions of conflict are in fact decidable by the test of reciprocity, and it is the only decidability that exists that I know of. 4) Scientifically (Axelrod) (operationally), no organism can both cooperate (produce outsized returns), and not (a) preserve defection (cheating), and (b) require reciprocity (prevent parasitism), and (c) buy options on cooperation (invest) to incentivize cooperation, and (d) practice altruistic punishment (costly punishment) in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate without going extinct. So: 0 – Parties must be able to negotiate a contract for cooperation and remember success or failure for cooperation to exist. (We cannot cooperate with animals. They aren’t conscious enough to do so, or to hold to commitments.) 1 – Objective morality (reciprocity) is in fact ‘reciprocity’. 2 – Moral norms (networks of reciprocity) 3 – Moral intuitions ( individual intuition of reciprocity given one’s reproductive/survival needs) 4 – Moral actions are limited to fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. And 1 – Restoration of reciprocity by forgiveness (investment in future forgiveness) 2 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution 3 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution and punishment 4 – restoration of incentive for reciprocity by restitution and death. Ergo 1 – one may take no action one may not perform restitution for. All of which pretty much are reflected in the common law of tort.
Theme: Truth
-
Is Objective Morality Possible? how Do We Know?
It’s actually pretty easy: 1) Empirically, (in-group) law evolved everywhere using a test of reciprocity. Even norms demand reciprocity. All that differs is the local organization of rights and obligations that produce various forms of reciprocity under various group evolutionary strategies. 2) Empirically, (out-group) international law, that is insulated by differences as a compromise between differences is reducible to reciprocity. 3) Logically, (internal consistency) all questions of conflict are in fact decidable by the test of reciprocity, and it is the only decidability that exists that I know of. 4) Scientifically (Axelrod) (operationally), no organism can both cooperate (produce outsized returns), and not (a) preserve defection (cheating), and (b) require reciprocity (prevent parasitism), and (c) buy options on cooperation (invest) to incentivize cooperation, and (d) practice altruistic punishment (costly punishment) in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate without going extinct. So: 0 – Parties must be able to negotiate a contract for cooperation and remember success or failure for cooperation to exist. (We cannot cooperate with animals. They aren’t conscious enough to do so, or to hold to commitments.) 1 – Objective morality (reciprocity) is in fact ‘reciprocity’. 2 – Moral norms (networks of reciprocity) 3 – Moral intuitions ( individual intuition of reciprocity given one’s reproductive/survival needs) 4 – Moral actions are limited to fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. And 1 – Restoration of reciprocity by forgiveness (investment in future forgiveness) 2 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution 3 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution and punishment 4 – restoration of incentive for reciprocity by restitution and death. Ergo 1 – one may take no action one may not perform restitution for. All of which pretty much are reflected in the common law of tort.
-
Esotericism….
—“You’re getting too esoteric man, can’t follow.”— Working on the esoteric requires one work with the esoteric. I can’t figure out yet what ‘esoteric’ ideas are violations of natural law and what aren’t. We are all working on learning the best we can. It’s the idiots that dig their heels into ignorance and defend it with stupidity and arrogance that vote themselves off the train. at present i’m simply trying to find a way to explian our biological want of a pack leader, and membership in a pack with the current fully indoctrinated lot of people who conceive only of equalitarian individualism ,and are unable to be intellectually honest about the animal impulses inside. I’d like to find a way to fulfill that “MARKET DESIRE” with something not false. If it was easy, someone would have done it before me
-
Esotericism….
—“You’re getting too esoteric man, can’t follow.”— Working on the esoteric requires one work with the esoteric. I can’t figure out yet what ‘esoteric’ ideas are violations of natural law and what aren’t. We are all working on learning the best we can. It’s the idiots that dig their heels into ignorance and defend it with stupidity and arrogance that vote themselves off the train. at present i’m simply trying to find a way to explian our biological want of a pack leader, and membership in a pack with the current fully indoctrinated lot of people who conceive only of equalitarian individualism ,and are unable to be intellectually honest about the animal impulses inside. I’d like to find a way to fulfill that “MARKET DESIRE” with something not false. If it was easy, someone would have done it before me
-
3) we use confirmation only to test measurements, not to test the search algorit
3) we use confirmation only to test measurements, not to test the search algorithm (hypothesis/theory/law).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-11 20:40:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995040958130610177
Reply addressees: @Noblesm85
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995040787736997888
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Noblesm85 2) … , and if including choice, rational choice (praxeologiccal consistency), and if including reciprocity (morality: reciprocal praxeological consistency), then we do not know if we have falsified our fantasies (free associations). Confirmations don’t tell us anything.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/995040787736997888
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@Noblesm85 2) … , and if including choice, rational choice (praxeologiccal consistency), and if including reciprocity (morality: reciprocal praxeological consistency), then we do not know if we have falsified our fantasies (free associations). Confirmations don’t tell us anything.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/995040787736997888
-
All justificationism is false. We can perform deductions (necessary), inductions
All justificationism is false. We can perform deductions (necessary), inductions (contingent), abductions (free associations), but in the end deduction or induction, or abduction only provide us with an hypothesis that must survive falsification.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-11 20:35:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995039823869239298
Reply addressees: @Noblesm85
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994979373349527552
IN REPLY TO:
@Noblesm85
@curtdoolittle You: We don’t need to make a statement about the physical universe because our actions aren’t contingent upon our understanding; even though I’m going to pretend that my actions actually gives me a piece of evolutionary knowledge- which I made no hypothesis on.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994979373349527552
-
again, you’re confusing excuse making and opportunity exploitation. I don’t need
again, you’re confusing excuse making and opportunity exploitation. I don’t need to justify anything, I just need to be able to falsify everything that I can, and use what remains.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-11 20:34:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995039394393481216
Reply addressees: @Noblesm85
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994980601752117248
IN REPLY TO:
@Noblesm85
@curtdoolittle 1) Induction is not our only method of understanding existence; we also have deduction and abduction.
2) I confused nothing. Your empiricism requires the belief that you can understand the universe, ie, the rational intelligibility of the universe.Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994980601752117248
-
IS OBJECTIVE MORALITY POSSIBLE? HOW DO WE KNOW? It’s actually pretty easy: 1) Em
IS OBJECTIVE MORALITY POSSIBLE? HOW DO WE KNOW?
It’s actually pretty easy:
1) Empirically, (in-group) law evolved everywhere using a test of reciprocity. Even norms demand reciprocity. All that differs is the local organization of rights and obligations that produce various forms of reciprocity under various group evolutionary strategies.
2) Empirically, (out-group) international law, that is insulated by differences as a compromise between differences is reducible to reciprocity.
3) Logically, (internal consistency) all questions of conflict are in fact decidable by the test of reciprocity, and it is the only decidability that exists that I know of.
4) Scientifically (Axelrod) (operationally), no organism can both cooperate (produce outsized returns), and not (a) preserve defection (cheating), and (b) require reciprocity (prevent parasitism), and (c) buy options on cooperation (invest) to incentivize cooperation, and (d) practice altruistic punishment (costly punishment) in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate without going extinct.
So:
0 – Parties must be able to negotiate a contract for cooperation and remember success or failure for cooperation to exist. (We cannot cooperate with animals. They aren’t conscious enough to do so, or to hold to commitments.)
1 – Objective morality (reciprocity) is in fact ‘reciprocity’.
2 – Moral norms (networks of reciprocity)
3 – Moral intuitions ( individual intuition of reciprocity given one’s reproductive/survival needs)
4 – Moral actions are limited to fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality.
And
1 – Restoration of reciprocity by forgiveness (investment in future forgiveness)
2 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution
3 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution and punishment
4 – restoration of incentive for reciprocity by restitution and death.
Ergo
1 – one may take no action one may not perform restitution for.
All of which pretty much are reflected in the common law of tort.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-11 14:55:00 UTC
-
There is no god, but Men – Men of Truth , Agency, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, and
There is no god, but Men – Men of Truth , Agency, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, and Maneuver. We are the gods. That is why the liars, the weak, the ignorant, the incompetent and the unsovereign had to invent false gods – to oppose us. With the unification of horse, wheel, bronze, maneuver, oath, and sovereignty, we invented the means by which to bend man, beast, and nature to our will or break them all to pieces. The religions were invented to create false gods for the weak, to substitute for the Aristocracy of the real. Our heroes, demigods, and gods teach, assist, or interfere, but never can they defeat us. In stead, we seek to unseat and replace them. For weak gods have no stay against the minds of men.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-11 12:50:00 UTC
-
We are the gods.
There is no god, but Men – Men of Truth , Agency, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, and Maneuver. We are the gods. That is why the liars, the weak, the ignorant, the incompetent and the unsovereign had to invent false gods – to oppose us. With the unification of horse, wheel, bronze, maneuver, oath, and sovereignty, we invented the means by which to bend man, beast, and nature to our will or break them all to pieces. The religions were invented to create false gods for the weak, to substitute for the Aristocracy of the real. Our heroes, demigods, and gods teach, assist, or interfere, but never can they defeat us. In stead, we seek to unseat and replace them. For weak gods have no stay against the minds of men.