Logically speaking, if the doctrine that befell me involved its enforcement upon others, I would have to do so. However, from the outside this looks simply like a memetic virus, and I’d use rationality to take it apart first. If the doctrine rejects rationality, it is suspicious.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @likeplastic_
Here, rationality implies that you derive epistemology (confidence equals weight of evidence), semantics (what does it mean to mean something), nature of belief vs. hypothesis vs. faith etc. so you get a toolkit to sandbox and analyze arbitrary doctrines without getting infected.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @gremlinboots @likeplastic_
I think truth is the result of an algorithmic process to assign values to variables. The proof that this is true, and also applies to experiential truth is not trivial, and most other truth concepts don’t insulate as well as the mind viruses protect themselves.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
In classical math, truth is provability, i.e. a statement is true within a system if it can be reduced to the axioms of that system. In constructive math (which was a necessary change after Gödel/Turing), the reduction requires a computable function, ie. a terminating procedure
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.