Partial answer to the self-calibrating tool
Question posed a few days ago:
Personal Equation Machines calibrate and exercise an astronomer's accuracy and reliability in detecting the truth of a sidereal transit. This is an extremely specialized calibration. Can we find a way to calibrate and train broader powers of truth detection? If it's possible at all, I think a balance or bridge is a promising path.
Chain of thought leading to partial answer:
1. Saw a typical idiot question on Quora. "Would armed citizens prevent a terrorist invasion?" Instant answer: Obviously not. Armed citizens didn't prevent the invasion by Public Health Terrorists in 2020.
2. Noticed a distinction: "Terrorist" is always a malign misattribution in both directions. "Terrorists" as officially defined are always the wrong people. The fake Commie Terrorists in the '50s were actually the FBI. The fake Islamic Terrorists of 2001 were actually the FBI. In the current ACTUAL invasion by Public Death Officers we DON'T describe the invaders as terrorists. The PDOs are actually doing everything the Commies and Muslims were supposedly doing. Shutting down private business and forcing everyone onto the dole? Check. Forcing everyone to wear burqas? Check. "Sleeper agents" posing as ordinary humans until the secret command is given? Check. Closing churches and forcing worship underground? Doublecheck for BOTH sets of "terrorists".
3. Self-calibration: Reminded myself that I fell hard for the Islamic "terrorist" lie but didn't fall for the Commie "terrorist" lie, and didn't fall for any of the lies surrounding the current invasion.
4. What's the diff? Experience. (a) I was involved in the "commies" in the '60s, so I learned that CIA and FBI were running them. I didn't stay there after I learned the reality. (b) I was NOT involved in Islam, so I didn't understand the falseness. (c) I know enough about viruses and immunity, FROM EXPERIENCE, that I wasn't fooled at all by the current set of lies.
5. But I did eventually pull out of the Islamic Terrorist lies, despite lack of experience and knowledge. What was the TRUTH-DETECTING TOOL that helped me to pull out?
Answer: This blog was the tool. Writing was the tool.
In 2005 when I started writing here, I was gung ho neocon, blindly obeying and spreading ALL of the transparently stupid lies about Arabs and Muslims. By 2006 I was harboring doubts, so I was ready for the NOW I SEE moment when Bush gave a harbor (heh) to Saudi.
So we have a partial answer to the self-calibration tool question, and it turns out to be a lot like a balance.
Writing sends a signal out to a piece of paper (or computer facsimile thereof). You read the signal as reflected (and possibly distorted) by the exigencies of language. You edit the language (adjust the weight) until it seems to be a good reflection.
The PROCESS of finding a resonance between brain and paper is identical to the PROCESS of finding a resonance between input and output loops. This is the exercise in the original question.
After you edit to hit the best resonance, you sense whether distortion is still present. That's the calibration moment, the NOW I SEE moment. If you can't null out the reflection, you know that the signal involves an un-nullable distortion.
Is this the PURPOSE of writing? Is this why we have hard-wired brain modules for writing and reading?
was probably the first formalized use of writing. Try to null out the debits and credits, handle the remainder as a payment or borrowing. The written record gives you (and others) a chance to audit the resonance.
Labels: Equipoise, Experiential education, Metrology