Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • “Q: Have you spoken or written on Spengler’s theories of civilization before?”–

    –“Q: Have you spoken or written on Spengler’s theories of civilization before?”–

    Yes but even taking to account criticisms of his overdeterminism and simplification, it’s well traveled ground and I pretty much agree with him – but then I comprehend that he wrote it at the end of WWI and was … more than depressed by what he saw. So I have to temper what he says. Also, the germans had surpassed the british in science and education and possibly in governance, but they did not really grasp the dynamism of the anglo and american entrepreneurialism and independence. So his pessimism has turned out correct, but only partly for the reasons he suggested, and more so to the jewish sedition and it’s use of women and immigration that took advantage of that english optimism and entrepreneurialism.
    I don’t really have much to say other than he’s worth the read with what I’ve said above in mind. I would rather recommend Tragedy and Hope and The History Of Civilizations by Quigley who didn’t need anti-depressants to cover the same concepts and ideas. 😉

    I should note that despite my anglo and american entrepreneurial aristocratic optimism, and my criticism of Schmidt’s observation but failure to understand the solution, that I’ve ‘gone over to the germanic’ and agree a bit more with hobbes and spengler than I did in my younger days. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 03:29:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751809652961009664

  • Of course. It just has a LOT of computational text that is very similar to work

    Of course. It just has a LOT of computational text that is very similar to work from. So the problem of programming is much simpler than the problem of language.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 03:11:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751805156012736770

    Reply addressees: @dbabbitt @compliantcitiz1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751801027290886193

  • Of couse. We’re saying the same thing. We just aren’t there. THe brain predicts

    Of couse. We’re saying the same thing. We just aren’t there.

    THe brain predicts a field of possibilities, and only raises those that change state (reward) to our attention. If we hold that state with the prefrontal cortex we can then iterate and wayfind by the same process. This is how language is done subconsiously and how all other behavior is done consiously as well a subconsiously.

    The brain is very simple, but it uises 20watts and is massively parallel – the problem with the existing hardware is it uses ungodly numbers of wats and is not operating (much) in parallel. And worse it must transport symbols and store them when there is no difference and no work to be done in the neocortex.

    Reply addressees: @compliantcitiz1 @dbabbitt

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 03:10:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751804960281391104

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751801336335581659

  • I try and I try to improve my arguments even if all that changes is the improvem

    I try and I try to improve my arguments even if all that changes is the improvement of my argument or my certainty of the impossibility of achieving desired ends. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 03:07:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751804318359904563

  • Immorality = Irreciprocity. Irreciprocity means violating the requirements for:

    Immorality = Irreciprocity.
    Irreciprocity means violating the requirements for:
    productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests (of all kinds) free of imposition of costs on the demonstrated interests of others including by externality.
    This…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 03:06:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751804024439914793

    Reply addressees: @DrBobNayer @_Itsmrfoxy_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751799473251205242

  • Immorality = Irreciprocity. Irreciprocity means violating the requirements for:

    Immorality = Irreciprocity.
    Irreciprocity means violating the requirements for:
    productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests (of all kinds) free of imposition of costs on the demonstrated interests of others including by externality.
    This is universal.
    It’s instinct
    It has to be.
    It’s physics.
    But it’s the negative.

    Amorality as a system of measurement, and a set of actions consists of what actions we take that are not immoral, but have no positive effect on the demonstrated interests of others (capital)

    Morality as a system of measurement, and as a set of actions, consists of what positive actions we take that are not irreciprocal AND produce a net increase in capital in the widest most abstract sense, even if that capital is just an increase in the likelihood of future safety, cooperation or insurance (investment).

    So the actions that are immoral, a moral, and moral evolve with the capital possessed by individuals and in particular the capital held in common by the population.

    The preservation of capital from imposition of cost (immorality) directy or indirectly (by externality) requires bearing the costs of NOT imposing costs (immorality) upon the demonstrated interests of others, whether private or common, directly or indirectly.

    The scale of the accumulated behavioral capital in this practice of ( habit, norm, tradition, rule, law) non-aggression against others’ demonstrated interests directly or indirectly whether private or common determines what is called and measured by the capital asset we call trust.

    To create this trust we engage in policing it by subtle means: altruistic investment, altruistic repayment, and altruistic punishment.

    Additionally, we vary in our terms of cooperation and investment. So we vary in moral DEMANDS, even if if moral DECIDABILITY is universal, moral demands differ between sexes, individuals, classes, groups, and populations.

    And additionally the degree of development, the degree of trust, the degree of personal, social, and institutional defesnse of capital and especially the capital of Trust, varies between groups like all technologies and institutions vary between groups.

    However, There are no moral norms traditions values or institutions that cannot be described and decided by the terms I have listed here by defining what is immoral, and defining what amoral and moral actions prevent immorality.

    Additionally, human individuals, human groups, and human organizations make errors, and will wrongly attribute moralioty to something that is in fact immoral.

    That does not mean that despite there error we cannot universally decide by universal decidabilty stated above whether an action or inaction is immoral.

    Because immoral, amoral, and moral actions are not an opinion. They aren’t relative. It’s a science. Whether we like it or not.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 03:06:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751804024205012992

  • Have to agree with you Kate. It’s exasperating. I can’t figure out who’s worse –

    Have to agree with you Kate. It’s exasperating. I can’t figure out who’s worse – the cowards on the right or the criminals on the left.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 02:47:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751799300341039208

    Reply addressees: @spaceangelvoice

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751741307003740227

  • ( verdadeiro )

    ( verdadeiro )

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 02:44:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751798437836632356

    Reply addressees: @junkodama10 @PGeraldelli @Steh_Papaiano

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751798059850232116

  • I doubt very seriously I’m confusing or conflating anything. On the other hand y

    I doubt very seriously I’m confusing or conflating anything. On the other hand you might interpret what I’m saying as ambiguous and not grasp my meaning.

    All language consists of measurements. A number has no unambiguous meaning without a context, and few if any terms have unambiguous meaning without context. So context equals correspondence.

    In other words if a word is ambiguous in meaning then it’s context is insufficient to provide ambiuity.

    This is the reason we demand operational language in testifiable truth – because if you cannot state what you mean in operational terms you cannot reduce it to unambiguous identity.

    The purpose of grammar is to continuously recursively disambiguate disorder into order, or more correctly ambiguity into identity.

    The function of all existence relies on the same process of continuous recursive disambiguation of entropy into negative entropy that captures time energy and information in its organization and produces additional new opportunities for capture of more energy and more persistence (time) that can be put to new use (capital).

    So the entire universe works by the same simple principle at all scales and the simplicity of that principle emerges in in all contexts at all scales because it must for reasons too complex to explain here.

    So, it’s not the words that have meaning so much as the words phrases sentences narratives reduced to operational prose that produce unambiguity.

    As for reasoning it consists of the primitives the brain is capable of doing which is just wayfinding between episodes where episode consists of a memory and it’s associations in the most general terms.

    Reply addressees: @BrownCanard @compliantcitiz1

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 02:43:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751798203131871232

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751795444752269478

  • I don’t want to run down a rat hole but we have mathematical proof generators fo

    I don’t want to run down a rat hole but we have mathematical proof generators for a reason – because there are a limited number of rules and the foundation of all of those rules is quite simple. The same is true for proteins, chemistry, and subatomic and atomic physics. Essentially it’s a game of combinatorial trial and error. But the options in math and physics are quite limited compared to the options in teh real world at scale that involve coordinting resources and people with time and money.
    So I’ll disagree with you pretty easily. The most common example is the limitation of mathematics in economics at any scale, and the limitation of mathematics at any small scale. We run into these limits all the time.

    Reply addressees: @BrownCanard

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 02:35:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751796243188097024

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751795024512315814