RESPONSE TO THE SCHIZOTYPAL LUNATIC FRINGE
I always respond to attacks when I find out about them. I just wish some of them were worth responding to. (the nietzcheans have provided the only meaningful criticism to date).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTbBXZGPS58
NOTES ON AUDIO
- It is irrelevant how many people listen, it’s only relevant who listens. There is a large audience for astrology.
- There is a vast difference between the set (pedagogical, useful, meaningful) on the one hand, and the set (true, necessary, decidable) on the other. The first consists of literature and informs on a strategy, the second consists of law and decides conflicts regardless of strategy.
- Ideologies and World-views (Excuses for evolutionary strategies). We seek justification for our strategies. that is all.
- The french revolution provides an exception not a rule: it was the most backward government in Europe. The British had revolutions frequently, because the never had as much asymmetry as the french. The Russian and British and Chinese are far better examples since they are frequent and less reductio out of extremity.
- the american experiment comes closest to creating formal, strictly constructed law as a social science of cooperation: natural law as a peer to physical law.
- Democracy in the ancient and in the modern world was an excuse by which to transfer power from the landed aristocracy to the commercial aristocracy using the families of the soldiery necessary to hold territory. Bribe with political power rather than enfranchisement into property rights.
- (35:00 So far nothing jay says is causal its all justificationary – life is much more rich, more to experience, more to philosophy. this is despite the fact that he does not say why these things have any import other than taking a carnival ride is more interesting than studying the structure of the ride. I am sitting through literary excuse making, straw man arguments, and self congratulatory use of critique. It’s painful. This is an example ‘mumbo-jumbo’ if there is any. Critique is NOT science (truth). )
- I (curt doolittle) am a social scientists who attempts to construct law. I use the language of philosophy at the indirect advice of Hoppe. if i seek to unite truth, philosophy, science, and law, then I use the ancient disciplinary tree.
- That you don’t think I”m that good isn’t a measure of anything. That you think its bad and laughable is (humorous). OMG it’s embarrassing to listen to this name calling and marxist critique rather than refuting ideas (that you are not intellectually capable or informed sufficiently to understand)
- Decidability is the end of the road for law. Just as it is for science. You would need to refute that statement.
- Stephan is a public intellectual, engaged in the use of reason. whether he is a philosopher or not, is a question. He has tried and failed to produce a theory. (Just as you seem to be trying to produce some theory, although all I see is marxist critique: criticizing what you don’t agree with but providing no theory that is equally open to criticism. This is a common method of deceit. It is how marxism attack the west: through pseudo-scientific critique.
- The rule of law is what we are investigating in libertarianism. Is law enough? can we make law into a sufficient social science so that all ethical and political statements are decidable ‘moral’ (non-parasitic).
- Aristotle uses reason, which is different from rationalism, which is different from logic, is different from science. (OMG this podcast is embarrassing to listen to.)
- Use the word ‘True’ without understanding what it might, can, and must mean. Critique, critique, critique, critique… all I hear. No argument yet. nothing. completely vacuous empty verbalisms.
- Reason is the process by which we launder imaginary relations, error, bias, wishful thinking, deception, overloading, from our free associations, where those free associations are provided by our intuition, and where that intuition is biased heavily by our genetics, gender, and experiences.
- omg… reason, energy, senses. omfg. this is …. embarrassing. I really have to spend time on this empty verbalism? On this Marxist Critique? This guy uses a bunch of postmodern nonsense words.
- We can say that experiential relations are a preference, not a truth. But then we have to ask where do the wights we assign to those experiential relations come from? It comes from chemical rewards provided by our evolutionary history and encoded in our genes.
- TRUTH: if you cannot construct an operational description of your terms and fully account for the information present in your statements then you are not able to make a truth claim. This is simply true. Period.
- The scientific method is a set of steps by which we eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit from your utterances. Science is the method of by which we produce testimony.
- Empiricism means that all knowledge that survives criticism by reason originates in senses. (Observation). We say that MEASUREMENT is a method of insuring that our senses contain the least error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit.
- We (scientists) dont make knowledge claims (only justifications do that and they all error). We give testimony. Meaning that we testify that we have eliminated error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from our statements to the best of our ability.
- The purpose of experientially loaded literature is to EDUCATE, INFORM, AND ASSIST IN HYPOTHESIS. The purpose of science is to remove experiential loading, framing, obscuring, imaginary content, error, bias, and deceit from those hypotheses.
- The error is in that one or the other survives exclusively (I don’t make this error). It is that pedagogy and experience are individual matters, and decidability and truth are interpersonal matters. In other words you are welcome to your experiences as long as we are not in conflict. If we are in conflict then only truth renders conflicts decidable.
- Why must conflict be decidable? Because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding and we cannot cooperate if our contractual relations are not decidable by objective (true) means.
CONCLUSION
This is the answer you are failing to grasp: the dual need for both individual experience VS interpersonal decidability.
CRITICISM AND REFRAMING
- You are an excuse-maker. What I have seen in this discourse is nothing other than a) a failure to articulate a theory, b) the constant demonstration of seeking confirmation bias in analogies and c) the use of critique to criticize the opposition, and d) the use of ridicule.
You have a lot of viewers because there are a lot of idiots who need similar justification for their incomprehension. (Dunning-Kruger at Work). It is a desperate attempt to find will-to-power by finding a way to excuse one’s inability to grasp abstract relations independent of intuitionistic weightings. This ability is what separates less intelligent from more intelligent people.
-
Molyneux is a communicator. He has a lot of viewers because even if imperfect, he is an educator. He educates. And honestly he is great at it.
-
I am a scientist. I don’t care about the number of viewers, I just care about whether I advance the discipline of truth telling. So far I have made more progress than anyone other than Popper and Hume. The purpose of public discourse is to attempt to falsify my theories: to see if they survive criticism.
THE SCHIZOTYPAL PERSONALITY
This is a waste of my time. I made it through 1:12:00 before I tired of the mental equivalent of conspiracy theory. There is a very clear relationship between mental illness (schizotypal thinking) and this desperate need to feel confidence in one’s thinking despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
So Jay earns the Curt Doolittle Stamp of Schizotypal Personality by attempting to use selection bias and loose analogy absent causal relations in order to justify his in ability to alter his framing to that of the universal language of truth: science. Why? Because confronting that reality would force him to recognize his lower status and abandon the self deception of mental superiority. This is again, evidence of Schizotypal personality traits. Judgement rendered. It is how it is.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
h/t: Megan Cyloneight
FOLLOWUP DEBATE
(I am trying to find out if he actually has any idea what he’s talking about.)
Jay Dyer
Curt Doolittle seems to want a public debate, so I’ve offered the challenge.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
I didn’t realize responding to lame criticism was an invitation to a debate. But if slicing and dicing a pseudo-intellectual is necessary to silence idiocy then i’m your huckleberry.
Jay Dyer
Yawn. Hot air as usual – you know I don’t lose debates, right? When can you come on skype and mop the floor with me?
Jay Dyer
I see a lot of recess level cut downs, but not much meat. I love baiting these kind of guys.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Yeah. like your video today? lol
Here we go chipmunk. Pick a topic. I have time late this week and late next week.
Kyle Griffin
‘you know I dont lose debates right?’ that my friend. is exactly why you lose every debate.
Jay Dyer
Haha. Seriously dude? You bet my video from today. As in how you didn’t respond to any of the actual arguments in the talk (let me guess – ‘there weren’t none!”).
Jay Dyer
Kyle – Yawn Irvin suffered this same fate. I don’t lose debates.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
You didnt make an argument you made straw men.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Well I kind of doubt you’re smart enough to know you you lose all of them…. if today’s video was any example.
Jay Dyer
I critiqued scientism through a transcendental argument, which you obviously don’t understand. I made probably 20 arguments, obviously.
Jay Dyer
Typical materialist retardo hot air – never ending championing of their own intellect.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
I know a lie when I see it. I’m going to show the audience your a charlatan. and it’s going to be easy.
Jay Dyer
Please pop your collar up when you do!
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
I’m not championing my intellect I’m pointing out your lack of one. wink emoticon
Kyle Griffin
Being clever is not about raving about how clever you are jay its about logic and rational critical thinking. more than anything its about being humble enough to know when you dont know what you’re talking about. its not about the ego, which is something you seem to suffer from.
spewing out accusations like ‘hot air” and the like that have no bearing other than to make you feel like you’re on the high horse.
Jay Dyer Hmm, I’m 6 3 and fit. Your short, chunky and pop your collar lol who is the munchkin here?
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
I am pretty sure I’ve killed more men than you have.
Jay Dyer Kyle – Curt wanted a debate by calling me out. I don’t shy away from debates and Yawn Irvin learned that the hard way.
Kyle Griffin
curt said nothing about a debate you just decided that he must have challenged you to a duel by hurting your pride
Jay Dyer
Is that supposed to be some advantage for debate?
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
I called you a bullshitter. a laughable pseudointellectual. a schizotypal personality.
Jay Dyer
Curt – are you familiar with transcendental arguments?
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
I am familiar with pseudoscience, yes.
Jay Dyer
Is Kurt Godel pseudoscience?
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
kurt godel was a human being.
Jay Dyer
A funny man! Are mathematical objects social constructs?
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Define mathematical object.
Jay Dyer
A number.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
A number is a positional name for a sequence of actions of pairing off.
Jay Dyer So they are merely token symbols?
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
I gave the operational definition, and its informationally complete enough to withstand further inquiry. You are attempting a to construct a falsehod by suggesting a substitute that is not equally informationally complete. ie:youre trying to lie.
Jay Dyer
You’re interjecting verbiage to confuse a clear matter – I stand with Roger Penrose and use his argument. It’s a well-known platonic argument by mathematicians. No lies involved.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
So you are going to appeal to authority now. you can’t sustain the argument you began?
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
you use a very childish technique of appeals to all sorts of analogy rather than necessity. it’s called seeking confirmation bias. or, intellectual excuse making.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
a number is a positional name for a sequence of actions of pairing off
Jay Dyer
I just said it wasn’t a proof of the argument, just showing you its an old argument.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
you cannot prove an argument, you can only show it is internally consistent. an argument survives criticism or it does not. proof does’t determine truth but possibility.
Jay Dyer
What is childish is constant name calling. It’s a simple argument mathematicians have used for a long time. So, your verbiage is just a rehash of nominalism. It’s a “positional name,” ergo it’s a token symbol for some set. Hence Godel and Penrose’s arguments hold.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
astrologers have used arguments for a long time. that has no bearing on a statement’s truth or falsehood.
Jay Dyer
I agree about internal consistency. I accept the coherency theory of truth. As for “proof,” that depends on what criteria one has, which would require omniscience.
Jay Dyer
A transcendental argument is nothing like astrology, it’s a reductio argument.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
(you must understand you are far, far, far, out of your depth in discussing any philosophical topic with me. I am one of the best people working today. that is not a statement of my excellence but one of the decline in philosophy under postmodernism.)
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
a reductio argument is one in which the example is tautological and therefore inapplicable. ie: false.
Jay Dyer Dude,
I’m citing arguments from known and respected philosophers dealing with mathematics and you’re telling me how great you are, seemingly unaware of them . lol
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
An argument survives criticism or it does not.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
In other words you are appealing to authority without showing causal relations.
Jay Dyer
Correct. lol so you know what a reducito it. lol
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
in other words you’re lying
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
so far you have not made an argument. yuo have evaded them with a series of excuses.
Jay Dyer Curt – a transcendental argument is a reductio argument that shows the impossibility of some position being coherent.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
make an argument becuase you have not yet made one.
Jay Dyer
Mathematical objects cannot be token symbols or merely human social constructs and therefore rank materialism is false and contradictory.
Jay Dyer
A transcendental argument.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
logical consistency is predicated on the assumption of non-contradiction. Making a loose analogy does not an argument free of contradiction and external correspondence make.
Jay Dyer
Scientism is self refuting insofar as it presupposes all truths are empirical, when that foundational maxim itself is not empirically known.
Jay Dyer
Scientism is self refuting insofar as it presupposes all truths are empirical, when that foundational maxim itself is not empirically known.
Jay Dyer
It’s not a loose analogy, you appeal to objects or concepts which cannot be material, in order to defend materialism. Hence you contradict at a fundamental level.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
science does no such thing becuse science does not make the rationalist fallacy of proof. Instead, science says only that if we eliminate error bias, wishful thinking, and deceit in each possible dimension that we may possess a truth candidate.
Jay Dyer
Nominalism, which is what you affirm, is the lie here.
Jay Dyer
Are you aware that scientific method and process operates on logic? A la Husserl’s Logical Investigations?
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
I never, ever, ever appeal to other than existential entities which is why I never fall into the rationalist fallacies (which any reasonable grad student would criticize you for)
Jay Dyer Except that you do – that is my point.
Jay Dyer Numbers, the laws of logic, are existential entities that are not material in nature.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
This is incorrect. the scientific method is explained by philosophers, but scientists ignore philosophy and practice their craft.
Jay Dyer
I did grad work in this bruheim.
Jay Dyer
Yes, they do, inconsistently and incoherently.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
a number is a name. your name is jay. names exist.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
tehy exist when we act.
Jay Dyer
Exactly – that is called nominalism, Mr. Philosopher King.
Jay Dyer
And that is the only existence they have, correct?
Jay Dyer Did you really think you could just rehash nominalism from 600 years ago and no one has responded to, or dealt with this issue? There are a long, long list of capable mathematicians who have refuted this retardation, most notably Husserl in the Logical Investigations.
Jay Dyer Numbers are universals. Invariant, immaterial and not bound by time. Oops!
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Existence of a number requires a mind to host it, and sense experience to bring it into existence as experience.
The fact that many of us use the same number system means that we can make use of these names just as we make use of all other names.
There is no more mystery or magic to numbers than there is to your name OTHER than that it is possible to sympathetically test your possibilities, and the consequence s of your actions but it is not possible for mortal man to envision the consequences of axiomatic expressions without a great deal of effort using symbols and operations as temporary stores of state.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
verbalisms. Numbers are positional names. pairing off can be done with any set of names. Early number sets used many names. the fact that pairing off a sequence of any marker (stone) or positional reference is identical every time is obvious. No magic needed.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Why was Husserl (as a good german) trying to create mysticism where none exists?
Jay Dyer
And you ridiculously believe that minds are merely matter, so the question of number “in a mind” is made all the more nonsensical in materialism.
Jay Dyer
What you call mysticism is number theory, which is obviously not material in nature.
Jay Dyer
Mandelbrot sets show they are not merely names.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
I gave you number theory in two statements. that’s all there is. nothing more. The basis of mathematics is exactly as I said. period.
Jay Dyer
This is Kurt Gödel’s argument.
Jay Dyer
Ad hoc dogmatism. All hail Curt’s divine decision that numbers are merely names, despite Mandelbrot sets. You realize the human mind cannot conceive of that set, right? that is the point. Thus they are not material.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
mandelbrot sets show that when calculations can be performed beyond the rate at which humans can process those operations (in his own words)
If you understood Godel’s arguments you could repeat them and show the relation to the conversation. The fact that I am making operational arguments are you are using appeals to authority and analogy without demonstrating causal relations is because you do not understand those relations. that is all. nothing more is going on here.
You are not capable of understanding so you are relying upon verbal mysticism.
Jay Dyer
You are making Bertrand Russel’s arguments about sets. I am making Godels. You lose that argument, just like Rusell.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
you haven’t made an argument you are just throwing names around. any first year philosophy stuident will understand what you are doing.
Jay Dyer ‘mandelbrot sets show that when calculations can be performed beyond the “
Good argument Curt. Is this an argument? I understand the argument well, as well as Hofstadter’s books on it. I don’t think you do because you just title mysticism what YOU don’t understand.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
I am making no one’s argument. I am stating facts. Numbers consist of positional names for pairing off. Pairing off is the simplest operation possible. Pairing off is scale independent. Scale independnece must be provided by context (called ‘axiom of choice’ in mathematics).
Godel like Cantor used the pairing off method in order to retreat to the foundations of mathematics and circumvent some of the dogma of the intervening ages.
You have made no argument.
I use operational definitions in all my work.
This all but guarantees I must understand the existential necessiteis that bring any object I refer to into existence.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Anyone with any education will readily be able to see by now that you’re just an excuse maker. Are you sure you really want to continue all your bloviating?
CAUSAL RELATIONS
OPERATIONS ARE CAUSAL.
OPERATIONS EXIST.
I’m calling you out as a bullshitter. A pseudo-intellectual. A pretender. Not a philosopher, but a charlatan.
Make an argument that shows causal relations, by NECESSITY.
ooops. nope? sadly it was obvious from the start.
Jay Dyer
Your definition of number presupposes the very thing in question – I am asking what number IS, and you reply it is merely a name for pairing. That is the point – it cannot merely be a name for an operation. I am asking about the truth or conceptual reality behind that. Now, you will deny that – and that is what I am challenging. When you discuss number with another person, what is the content that is shared in that conversation that is in another person’s head? When you say “7” and I think “7” – that shows the number in question cannot merely be an action of pairing.
Jay Dyer
The cells in one person’s head are not the same as another person’s cells. How is the same conceptual content and meaning shared?
Jay Dyer
In materialism?
Jay Dyer
No one is buying your ad hominems and bullshit bragging dude.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
the word “is” means ‘exists as’.
What you are talking about is the free associations that develop in the mind when habituating the use of numbers, formulae. This are free associations. Some of these free associations consist of useful patterns. Some oft hem consist of nonsense. some of falsehoods. Like all free associations they must survive criticism in order for ust to testify that they are truth candidates.
Jay Dyer
Haha so they are social constructs?
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
A social construct in the current vernacular means that they are created by preference not by necessity.
Numbers are exactly what I said they are.
That people dream about these things is a property of man, not of positional naming.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Actually, everyone is buying it. That is, unless your followers are succeptible to nonsense. And I’m sure there is a market for nonsense. That’s why we have different markets for every ten points of IQ : limits.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
So the error you just made was an attempt to conflate the properties of a thing with the imaginary properties of a thing that are produced by free association.
Jay Dyer haha yeah dude. only a phony troll brags about killing people on facebook. youre the fraud.
Jay Dyer waste of time. Go pop your collar.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
ah. So we know I won. Right?
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
everyone else does.
Jay Dyer dream on dude. you think winning is just rehashing your materialism and nominalism. lol
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
So here is your (Jay’s) recipe for philosophical snake oil:
- use a lot of analogies and non-operational language
- use conflation by avoiding operational language
- use critique (criticizing the opposition without providing an opposing theory)
- using name calling “materialism nominalism” and such without demonstrating the dependence upon such arguments.
- Building straw men.
Jay Dyer Curt – you realize that in your worldview you return to a meaningless universe at death, right? So that means life is meaningless, ultimately. And that means meaning is fleeting and also passes away, out of existence when humans aren’t creating them. That means all your arguments are temporal, nominal meaningless phantasms. Oops!
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
I mean, you’re like a full course in rehtorical fallacy
Jay Dyer Like how you interjected about 80 ad hominems and rehashed your position? Fallacies like that?
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Dude. If you feel the desperate need for mysticism I understand. But I deal in INTERPERSONAL not PERSONAL philosophy. I deal with truth not desire. With necessity not preference.
I don’t care what you do with your nonsense, but don’t bring up my name again unless oyu want me to keep dragging you through the mud so that eveyronen sees your an empty hat.
Jay Dyer Name calling? Those are the fucking philosophical terms for the position, which you ought to know, Philosopher King.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Personal philosophy may be necessary in order to tolerate existence – especially when reality would force you to confront your failure and inadequacy.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
But some of us deal with science.
Jay Dyer Curt – I don’t believe it is “mysticism.”
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
And science is necessary not because of preference but becuase in matters of difference of opinion conflicts must be decidable.
Jay Dyer Your conception of “science” is scientism.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Well you do rely on mysticism
Jay Dyer You realize computer science uses these abstract maths I’m talking about, right?
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
You are repeatedly referring to the source of information that is not causal.
Jay Dyer Yes, God is the Mind which houses these multitude relations.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
computer science is based upon the foundations of binary mathemtatics: an infinte truth table consisting of pairing off.
Jay Dyer Here’s a good book on it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mind-God…/dp/0671797182
The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World
AMAZON.COM
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
So again. I have no problem with snake oil salesmen, I have no problem with mystics. The common people need their crutches.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
But some of us must rule.
And truth is the only possible means of rule.
God and physical law and natural law are synonyms for me, sorry. I need no other crutch.
Jay Dyer
Your crutch is scientism.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
So please be a good little boy and play in your sandbox with your pretend toys while a few of us adults try to solve the problem of the social sciences sot hat we can eliminate the need for discretion in political orders and thereby eliminate the opportunity for corruption.
That is after all, the purpose of the libertarian intellectual program: rule of law. Because the only rule free of discretion is that which consists of laws – natural laws.
Jay Dyer Infinities, by the way, are not observable in the natural world. oops!
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
No infinity an be brought into existence. None can exist. Infinities like limites are a device we use for managing scale independence when constructing general rules.
Jay Dyer Haha
You are the most arrogant ass Ive ever met in my life, and Ive met many.
So they aren’t real, but they also are used in computer science….hmmm.
Jay Dyer
You’re a complete psycho nutball – the perfect embodiment of the libertardian ethos.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
I am, however arrogant I may or may not be, one of the best living philosophers, and I have just spent a small amount of my relatively precious time defending my reputation from a charlatan.
Jay Dyer LOL
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
So you mean you are admitting defeat by retraeating fully in to (a) mysticism and (b) name calling, right?
Jay Dyer HAIL!
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
Everyone else knows you have been defeated.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
But the schizotypal personality cannot tolerate reality.
Jay Dyer Oh man, this is rich. I’m laughing because it’s hard to tell if you are real.
Burton Edwin Curt Doolittle
My diagnosis was correct. You are schizotypal.