Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Testimonialism (Completed Critical Rationalism)

    (second draft) (full cycle) (still needs third section) [W]e both perceive, and remember stimuli, and construct and remember relations from that stimuli, and construct and remember layers upon layers of those relations.

    The acts of planning, calculating, hypothesizing, searching, freely-associating, daydreaming, dreaming, and subconscious association attempt to imagine relations between the entire spectrum of memories we can store. Once some (useful?) association is made (found) we must criticize it: determine if it withstands the scrutiny of other relations. We determine if our imaginary relations survive (are truth candidates) by the act of testing those imagined relations to see if they fail or not – and therefore are worthy of our investment or not. We constantly compare the usefulness of the imagined relation with the cost of that imagined relation. The return on those relations determines how excited we ‘feel’ about those relations and the energy expenditure we can risk in pursuit of those relations. Returns can be both subjective and objective. Return can vary from mere satisfaction of curiosity, to personal gain, to a novel invention, to the total transformation of the world of man. As the complexity of relations increases, the means by which we test our imagined relations increases. While we are sometimes able to test our imagined relations by means of introspection, at some point we lack sufficient information to perform such tests, and must resort to both more structured methods of testing, and restore to gaining additional information to see if the imagined relation survives criticism. We perform this expansion of criticism until our estimation of the combination of risk,cost and reward favors conducting the final experiment of acting, rather than conducting either further criticism, or abandoning it as providing insufficient return. [T]he discipline we call philosophy and the discipline we call science consist of a set of methods (processes) which (a)philosophical science, (b)the social sciences, and (c)the physical sciences, use to launder existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences) from our testimony (speech). This laundering is achieved by a set of methodological criticisms addressing increasing levels of complexity of which philosophical science consists of the full set of criticisms, social science a subset of those criticisms, and physical science yet another a subset of those criticisms. Those criticisms consist of tests of: Identity, Internal Consistency, External Correspondence, Existential Possibility (Operationalism), Full Accounting (against selection bias), Parsimony (limits), and voluntary transfer (objective morality).”

  • Testimonialism (Completed Critical Rationalism)

    (second draft) (full cycle) (still needs third section) [W]e both perceive, and remember stimuli, and construct and remember relations from that stimuli, and construct and remember layers upon layers of those relations.

    The acts of planning, calculating, hypothesizing, searching, freely-associating, daydreaming, dreaming, and subconscious association attempt to imagine relations between the entire spectrum of memories we can store. Once some (useful?) association is made (found) we must criticize it: determine if it withstands the scrutiny of other relations. We determine if our imaginary relations survive (are truth candidates) by the act of testing those imagined relations to see if they fail or not – and therefore are worthy of our investment or not. We constantly compare the usefulness of the imagined relation with the cost of that imagined relation. The return on those relations determines how excited we ‘feel’ about those relations and the energy expenditure we can risk in pursuit of those relations. Returns can be both subjective and objective. Return can vary from mere satisfaction of curiosity, to personal gain, to a novel invention, to the total transformation of the world of man. As the complexity of relations increases, the means by which we test our imagined relations increases. While we are sometimes able to test our imagined relations by means of introspection, at some point we lack sufficient information to perform such tests, and must resort to both more structured methods of testing, and restore to gaining additional information to see if the imagined relation survives criticism. We perform this expansion of criticism until our estimation of the combination of risk,cost and reward favors conducting the final experiment of acting, rather than conducting either further criticism, or abandoning it as providing insufficient return. [T]he discipline we call philosophy and the discipline we call science consist of a set of methods (processes) which (a)philosophical science, (b)the social sciences, and (c)the physical sciences, use to launder existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences) from our testimony (speech). This laundering is achieved by a set of methodological criticisms addressing increasing levels of complexity of which philosophical science consists of the full set of criticisms, social science a subset of those criticisms, and physical science yet another a subset of those criticisms. Those criticisms consist of tests of: Identity, Internal Consistency, External Correspondence, Existential Possibility (Operationalism), Full Accounting (against selection bias), Parsimony (limits), and voluntary transfer (objective morality).”

  • Information Systems for the Persistence of Man

    SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY, 1-INTUITION, 2-REASON, 3-COOPERATION(REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR)

    (profound) (worth repeating)

    [O]ur logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.

    And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.

    Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.

    Reason (Stanovich’s System “2”) rides on the elephant of intuition (Stanovich’s System “1”), whose objects of consideration ( Doolittle’s System “0”) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev.

  • Information Systems for the Persistence of Man

    SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY, 1-INTUITION, 2-REASON, 3-COOPERATION(REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR)

    (profound) (worth repeating)

    [O]ur logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.

    And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.

    Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.

    Reason (Stanovich’s System “2”) rides on the elephant of intuition (Stanovich’s System “1”), whose objects of consideration ( Doolittle’s System “0”) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev.

  • Saturate The Environment with Truthfulness and People Will Act Truthfully

    (By: Curt Doolittle, Johannes Meixner and Andy Curzon) [W]e learn actions by doing. But we learn metaphysics by observation: our most effective learning-by-doing comes from recognizing patterns and habits of others in the environment. Things we take for granted as static, rather than open to our modification.

    So I tend to see something like programming as a skill that must be learned by doing. Some people are incapable no matter how many times they try to do something. Some people must do something many, many times. Others must do things a few times. Others just once or twice. Some of us can master concepts purely by imagining doing them a few times, and some of us by imagining the art of imagining doing them instantly. (We are very RARE.) We know that this progression roughy mirrors standard deviations of IQ around a ‘human minimum’ of around 106 (the start of Smart Fraction abilities: verbal articulation of ideas). And that makes sense when you realize that verbalizing complex ideas is in itself, the art of imagining operations in sequence. WHERE DOES THIS LEAD? – Saturate the environment with truth and people will act truthfully. – Saturate the environment with error the people will act erroneously. – Saturate the environment with deception and the people will act deceptively. – Saturate the environment with violence, and people will act violently. Because that is what it means to adapt to the environment.. – Education was the first means of public broadcasting. – Reading was the next, but it was voluntary. – Radio was next and could be done without effort. – Television was next and it was a serotonin-producing drug, that made saturation effortless. – Today the curious can see confirmation and alliance in almost any alternate reality that they can imagine. In Advanced countries people live in their isolation chambers, listening to echoes. Saturation is the best teaching. But how do we ensure people are saturated by truths rather than falsehoods? We make untruthful speech a crime when placed into the commons. Deprive the environment of negativity, and people will not act negatively. And within one or two generations we will saturate people with truth. And as such we: – Saturate the environment with truth and people will act truthfully. – Saturate the environment with trust and people will act trustworthily. – Saturate the environment with confidence and people will act confidently. – Saturate the environment with certainty and people will act certainly. – Saturate the environment with assurance, and people will act assuredly. – Saturate the environment with anything, and people will act likewise. So you see…. “after all, we’re all alike.” Education need not be interpersonal if it is environmental. The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Saturate The Environment with Truthfulness and People Will Act Truthfully

    (By: Curt Doolittle, Johannes Meixner and Andy Curzon) [W]e learn actions by doing. But we learn metaphysics by observation: our most effective learning-by-doing comes from recognizing patterns and habits of others in the environment. Things we take for granted as static, rather than open to our modification.

    So I tend to see something like programming as a skill that must be learned by doing. Some people are incapable no matter how many times they try to do something. Some people must do something many, many times. Others must do things a few times. Others just once or twice. Some of us can master concepts purely by imagining doing them a few times, and some of us by imagining the art of imagining doing them instantly. (We are very RARE.) We know that this progression roughy mirrors standard deviations of IQ around a ‘human minimum’ of around 106 (the start of Smart Fraction abilities: verbal articulation of ideas). And that makes sense when you realize that verbalizing complex ideas is in itself, the art of imagining operations in sequence. WHERE DOES THIS LEAD? – Saturate the environment with truth and people will act truthfully. – Saturate the environment with error the people will act erroneously. – Saturate the environment with deception and the people will act deceptively. – Saturate the environment with violence, and people will act violently. Because that is what it means to adapt to the environment.. – Education was the first means of public broadcasting. – Reading was the next, but it was voluntary. – Radio was next and could be done without effort. – Television was next and it was a serotonin-producing drug, that made saturation effortless. – Today the curious can see confirmation and alliance in almost any alternate reality that they can imagine. In Advanced countries people live in their isolation chambers, listening to echoes. Saturation is the best teaching. But how do we ensure people are saturated by truths rather than falsehoods? We make untruthful speech a crime when placed into the commons. Deprive the environment of negativity, and people will not act negatively. And within one or two generations we will saturate people with truth. And as such we: – Saturate the environment with truth and people will act truthfully. – Saturate the environment with trust and people will act trustworthily. – Saturate the environment with confidence and people will act confidently. – Saturate the environment with certainty and people will act certainly. – Saturate the environment with assurance, and people will act assuredly. – Saturate the environment with anything, and people will act likewise. So you see…. “after all, we’re all alike.” Education need not be interpersonal if it is environmental. The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev, Ukraine.

  • A Short Course on Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth

    (promoted to post) (very good outline) [T]he Truth – as in the most parsimonious description we can possibly make – we cannot know, even if we speak it. Truthfulness on the other hand, we can know.
    LIMITS: TRUTHFUL ENOUGH FOR THE CONSEQUENCES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/…/21/a-hierarchy-of-truths/ DEFINITIONS OF TRUTHFULNESS http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/05/29/definitions-truth/ DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR THE WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/due-diligence-necessary-f…/ THE END OF HISTORY IS NOT DEMOCRACY BUT THE TRUTHFUL CIVILIZATION http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-end-of-history-the-tr…/ FUKUYAMA DIDN”T UNDERSTAND http://www.propertarianism.com/…/13/fukuyama-didnt-underst…/ SCIENCE IS A MORAL DISCIPLINE IN WHICH WE WARRANTY THE TRUTHFULNESS OF OUR SPEECH. http://www.propertarianism.com/…/science-is-a-moral-discip…/ If scientists can warranty the truthfulness of their work, there is no reason the rest of us cannot do so. PHILOSOPHY MORALITY LAW AND SCIENCE CAN BE (AND SHOULD BE) IDENTICAL PROPOSITIONS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/philosophy-morality-scien…/ WE DISCOVERED TRUTH TELLING – WE DISCOVERED TRUTH. http://www.propertarianism.com/…/we-discovered-truth-telli…/ CULTURAL VARIANTS OF TRUTH http://www.propertarianism.com/…/cultural-variants-of-trut…/ THE CURE FOR PROPAGANDA AND THE RESTORATION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-cure-for-propaganda-a…/ ITS EXPENSIVE, YES. THE COST OF ELMINATING PSEUDOSCIENCE IN ECONOMICS https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/06/04/the-cost-of-eliminating-pseudoscience-in-economics/ WE JUST LEARN WHAT WORKS: TRUTH IN DEFENSE OF THE COMMONS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/we-never-know-anything-we…/ THE ONLY MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE STATE AND CONSTRUCTING LIBERTY http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-only-means-of-elimina…/ LIBERTY IS LIKE TRUTH: THERE IS ALWAYS MORE OF IT TO BE FOUND http://www.propertarianism.com/…/…/14/liberty-is-like-truth/ SEE ALSO My Criticism Of David Miller Is A Very Limited One http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/04/06/my-criticism-of-david-miller-is-a-very-limited-one/ Reforming Libertarian Ethics http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/reforming-libertarian-ethics/ Curt Doolittle Testimonialism and Propertarianism The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • A Short Course on Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth

    (promoted to post) (very good outline) [T]he Truth – as in the most parsimonious description we can possibly make – we cannot know, even if we speak it. Truthfulness on the other hand, we can know.
    LIMITS: TRUTHFUL ENOUGH FOR THE CONSEQUENCES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/…/21/a-hierarchy-of-truths/ DEFINITIONS OF TRUTHFULNESS http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/05/29/definitions-truth/ DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR THE WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/due-diligence-necessary-f…/ THE END OF HISTORY IS NOT DEMOCRACY BUT THE TRUTHFUL CIVILIZATION http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-end-of-history-the-tr…/ FUKUYAMA DIDN”T UNDERSTAND http://www.propertarianism.com/…/13/fukuyama-didnt-underst…/ SCIENCE IS A MORAL DISCIPLINE IN WHICH WE WARRANTY THE TRUTHFULNESS OF OUR SPEECH. http://www.propertarianism.com/…/science-is-a-moral-discip…/ If scientists can warranty the truthfulness of their work, there is no reason the rest of us cannot do so. PHILOSOPHY MORALITY LAW AND SCIENCE CAN BE (AND SHOULD BE) IDENTICAL PROPOSITIONS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/philosophy-morality-scien…/ WE DISCOVERED TRUTH TELLING – WE DISCOVERED TRUTH. http://www.propertarianism.com/…/we-discovered-truth-telli…/ CULTURAL VARIANTS OF TRUTH http://www.propertarianism.com/…/cultural-variants-of-trut…/ THE CURE FOR PROPAGANDA AND THE RESTORATION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-cure-for-propaganda-a…/ ITS EXPENSIVE, YES. THE COST OF ELMINATING PSEUDOSCIENCE IN ECONOMICS https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/06/04/the-cost-of-eliminating-pseudoscience-in-economics/ WE JUST LEARN WHAT WORKS: TRUTH IN DEFENSE OF THE COMMONS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/we-never-know-anything-we…/ THE ONLY MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE STATE AND CONSTRUCTING LIBERTY http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-only-means-of-elimina…/ LIBERTY IS LIKE TRUTH: THERE IS ALWAYS MORE OF IT TO BE FOUND http://www.propertarianism.com/…/…/14/liberty-is-like-truth/ SEE ALSO My Criticism Of David Miller Is A Very Limited One http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/04/06/my-criticism-of-david-miller-is-a-very-limited-one/ Reforming Libertarian Ethics http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/reforming-libertarian-ethics/ Curt Doolittle Testimonialism and Propertarianism The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Laws Prohibit Involuntary Transfer. Contracts Exchange Rights.

    [I]n writing a new constitution, we can easily deprive the government(producers of commons) and the judiciary(adjudication of law) of the ability to make law. The only laws that can possibly exist are those that prohibit a means of free riding (parasitism/imposing costs). And those laws must be found (discovered), theorized. Conversely, all positive rights can only possibly exist as contractual provisions in matters of exchange. The justness of contracts is something that we know how to do, and have done throughout our history.

    Now we can, each of us, either negotiate directly, or grant to some person, or some party, the right to negotiate contracts on our behalf. And to be bound by the contract that they negotiate. But in no case can I make a contract (a negotiation) that is unlawful – imposes involuntary transfers, or externalizes involuntary transfers. Nor can I engage in deceit in such contracts, by means of verbal obscurantism (non-operational language, or in violation of strict construction, or its quantitative equivalent laundering and pooling (money).

  • Laws Prohibit Involuntary Transfer. Contracts Exchange Rights.

    [I]n writing a new constitution, we can easily deprive the government(producers of commons) and the judiciary(adjudication of law) of the ability to make law. The only laws that can possibly exist are those that prohibit a means of free riding (parasitism/imposing costs). And those laws must be found (discovered), theorized. Conversely, all positive rights can only possibly exist as contractual provisions in matters of exchange. The justness of contracts is something that we know how to do, and have done throughout our history.

    Now we can, each of us, either negotiate directly, or grant to some person, or some party, the right to negotiate contracts on our behalf. And to be bound by the contract that they negotiate. But in no case can I make a contract (a negotiation) that is unlawful – imposes involuntary transfers, or externalizes involuntary transfers. Nor can I engage in deceit in such contracts, by means of verbal obscurantism (non-operational language, or in violation of strict construction, or its quantitative equivalent laundering and pooling (money).