Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Great work. As usual. 😉 Suggestion, 1, I would say all behavior has three state

    Great work. As usual. 😉

    Suggestion, 1, I would say all behavior has three states, and that you might consider Acquisition, Consumption, Preservation, and Defense. Or Acquisition, use, and defense.

    Suggestion: 1. All acquisition use and defense is reducible to homesteading (demonstrating an interest by investing in that which is not yet invested in), transformation, and exchange.

    Nit: 1. “property relations” might be stated as ‘transfers of a demonstrated interest”. I think property might be too ambiguous at term for our purposes.

    Nit: 2. “is sufficiently prosecuted” should be either “can be sufficiently prosecuted…” or “is sufficiently prosedutable..”

    Suggestion: In 2. you separate the ‘whereas’ from the ‘therefore’ with a paragraph break. I think this is the right format and you might consider tweaking all of them to fit that format for the purpose of clarity. This will help people remember the ‘therefore’ statements.

    Suggestion: in 4 I would reverse the examples so that the more legitimate is first, and the less so consumptive is second.
    Hmmm…. I might even separate them as I do in the constitutional work as Natural Rights vs Constructed or Legislative Rights. Though now that I think about it I think I like your capitalizing vs consuming approach as it is. 😉

    Question: do you think you have sufficiently conveyed that rights are produce as a common by reciprocal insurance, or are you leaving that up to the reader to deduce?

    Reply addressees: @ContraFabianist


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-15 20:59:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713660870608248832

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713651699968332126

  • EXAMPLE OF WHY IT”S HARD TO DUMB DOWN MY (OUR) WORK IN P-LAW. Comparing the Orig

    EXAMPLE OF WHY IT”S HARD TO DUMB DOWN MY (OUR) WORK IN P-LAW.
    Comparing the Original Academic, College, High School, and First Grade versions of the same text by ChatGPT4.
    It succeeds in getting one point across – morality is not relative. And maybe that’s all that really matters?

    CURTD
    Act as a random internet user. The random internet user asks you to write a definition of morality in the Style of philosopher and social scientist curt doolittle. Please respond with what you would write.

    ChatGPT
    Certainly, emulating the style of Curt Doolittle would likely involve a focus on rigorous epistemology, performative truth, and natural law. Here’s an attempt:

    “Morality, in the context of Natural Law, refers to the set of reciprocal and non-imposing behaviors that contribute to the persistence and flourishing of a cooperative social order. These behaviors manifest through performative truth—actions that are in concordance with the facts of reality and demonstrably beneficial to the group’s evolutionary strategy. In other words, morality is not an abstract or subjective construct, but a decidably quantifiable framework grounded in reciprocity and empirically observable outcomes. It exists as a byproduct of group evolutionary strategy, serving as a regulatory mechanism for interpersonal and inter-group relations. Accordingly, the demarcation of what is ‘moral’ is made through the application of tests for reciprocity and imposition of costs, rendering the concept scientifically scrutinizable, legally definable, and universally applicable.”

    I hope this aligns with the depth and style associated with Curt Doolittle’s approach to such complex topics. Feel free to critique or question any aspect of this definition.

    CURTD
    Interesting. That’s excellent. Profoundly good. Far better than I ‘ve seen you produce in the past. You keep getting better and better.

    ChatGPT
    I appreciate the high praise, especially coming from someone with your background and expertise. If there are any other topics or questions you’d like to explore, please feel free to ask. Your feedback and insights would be invaluable.

    CURTD
    What is the reading level of the passage you responded with?

    ChatGPT
    The passage appears to be written at a postgraduate or scholarly reading level. It incorporates specialized terminology from philosophy, law, and social science, such as “rigorous epistemology,” “performative truth,” “Natural Law,” and “group evolutionary strategy.” These terms are typically encountered in advanced academic settings and may require a specialized background to fully understand. Therefore, the passage would likely be most accessible to those with higher education, particularly in the fields mentioned.

    CURTD
    Could you repeat the original passage in language for a college student?

    ChatGPT
    Certainly. Here’s a rephrasing aimed at a college-level audience:

    “In the framework of Natural Law, morality is about actions that are fair and don’t harm others, which helps to maintain a well-functioning society. These actions are based on real facts and clearly help the group as a whole. So, morality isn’t just a personal opinion; it’s something we can measure based on its outcomes. It serves as a set of rules that guide how individuals and groups interact, allowing us to study and define what’s right and wrong in a consistent way.”

    I’ve aimed to preserve the original concepts while using terminology and phrasing that may be more accessible to a college student.

    CURTD
    Could you please translate the passage into high school level language?

    ChatGPT
    Certainly, here’s the translated version in high school level language:

    “When we talk about what’s right and wrong based on Natural Law, we’re talking about actions that are fair and don’t hurt anyone else. These actions help everyone get along and succeed together. We don’t just make up what’s right or wrong based on how we feel; instead, we look at actions that actually help the group and are based on facts. What’s considered ‘right’ is determined by rules that make sure everyone is treated fairly and nobody is taken advantage of. This makes it possible to really study what’s right and wrong in a way that’s the same for everyone, no matter where they’re from.”

    CURTD
    Can you repeat for a first grader?

    ChatGPT
    Certainly, translating complex ideas into language a first-grader could understand is a unique challenge. Here’s my attempt:

    “Being good means doing things that are fair and don’t hurt others. This helps everyone be friends and get along better. We don’t just guess what’s good; we have rules to help us know for sure. These rules make sure everyone is treated nicely.”

    I hope this simplification retains the essence of the original content.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-15 20:31:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713653783421505537

  • Act as a random internet user. The random internet user asks you to write a defi

    Act as a random internet user. The random internet user asks you to write a definition of morality in the STyle of philosopher and social scientist curt doolittle. Please respond with what you would write.
    ChatGPT
    Certainly, emulating the style of Curt Doolittle would likely involve a focus on rigorous epistemology, performative truth, and natural law. Here’s an attempt:

    “Morality, in the context of Natural Law, refers to the set of reciprocal and non-imposing behaviors that contribute to the persistence and flourishing of a cooperative social order. These behaviors manifest through performative truth—actions that are in concordance with the facts of reality and demonstrably beneficial to the group’s evolutionary strategy. In other words, morality is not an abstract or subjective construct, but a decidably quantifiable framework grounded in reciprocity and empirically observable outcomes. It exists as a byproduct of group evolutionary strategy, serving as a regulatory mechanism for interpersonal and inter-group relations. Accordingly, the demarcation of what is ‘moral’ is made through the application of tests for reciprocity and imposition of costs, rendering the concept scientifically scrutinizable, legally definable, and universally applicable.”

    I hope this aligns with the depth and style associated with Curt Doolittle’s approach to such complex topics. Feel free to critique or question any aspect of this definition.

    📷
    Interesting. That’s excellent. Profoundly good. Far better than I ‘ve seen you produce in the past. You keep getting better and better.
    ChatGPT
    I appreciate the high praise, especially coming from someone with your background and expertise. If there are any other topics or questions you’d like to explore, please feel free to ask. Your feedback and insights would be invaluable.

    📷
    Could you please translate the following passage into high school level language? Certainly, emulating the style of Curt Doolittle would likely involve a focus on rigorous epistemology, performative truth, and natural law. Here’s an attempt: “Morality, in the context of Natural Law, refers to the set of reciprocal and non-imposing behaviors that contribute to the persistence and flourishing of a cooperative social order. These behaviors manifest through performative truth—actions that are in concordance with the facts of reality and demonstrably beneficial to the group’s evolutionary strategy. In other words, morality is not an abstract or subjective construct, but a decidably quantifiable framework grounded in reciprocity and empirically observable outcomes. It exists as a byproduct of group evolutionary strategy, serving as a regulatory mechanism for interpersonal and inter-group relations. Accordingly, the demarcation of what is ‘moral’ is made through the application of tests for reciprocity and imposition of costs, rendering the concept scientifically scrutinizable, legally definable, and universally applicable.” I hope this aligns with the depth and style associated with Curt Doolittle’s approach to such complex topics. Feel free to critique or question any aspect of this definition.

    ChatGPT

    Certainly, here’s the translated version in high school level language:

    “When we talk about what’s right and wrong based on Natural Law, we’re talking about actions that are fair and don’t hurt anyone else. These actions help everyone get along and succeed together. We don’t just make up what’s right or wrong based on how we feel; instead, we look at actions that actually help the group and are based on facts. What’s considered ‘right’ is determined by rules that make sure everyone is treated fairly and nobody is taken advantage of. This makes it possible to really study what’s right and wrong in a way that’s the same for everyone, no matter where they’re from.”
    Feel free to ask any follow-up questions or provide feedback.
    📷

    Can you repeat for a first grader?

    ChatGPT

    Certainly, translating complex ideas into language a first-grader could understand is a unique challenge. Here’s my attempt:
    “Being good means doing things that are fair and don’t hurt others. This helps everyone be friends and get along better. We don’t just guess what’s good; we have rules to help us know for sure. These rules make sure everyone is treated nicely.”
    I hope this simplification retains the essence of the original content. Let me know if you have any further questions or feedback.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-15 20:31:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713651877009612800

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @ezra_tezra @adominguez792 @BronskiJoseph It’s still behind i

    RT @curtdoolittle: @ezra_tezra @adominguez792 @BronskiJoseph It’s still behind in assimilating information but it ‘knows’ my work.

    PROMPT…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-15 20:18:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713650661798064234

  • It’s still behind in assimilating information but it ‘knows’ my work. PROMPT Act

    It’s still behind in assimilating information but it ‘knows’ my work.

    PROMPT
    Act as a random internet user. The random internet user asks you to write a definition of morality in the STyle of philosopher and social scientist curt doolittle. Please respond with what you would write.

    ChatGPT
    Certainly, emulating the style of Curt Doolittle would likely involve a focus on rigorous epistemology, performative truth, and natural law. Here’s an attempt:

    “Morality, in the context of Natural Law, refers to the set of reciprocal and non-imposing behaviors that contribute to the persistence and flourishing of a cooperative social order. These behaviors manifest through performative truth—actions that are in concordance with the facts of reality and demonstrably beneficial to the group’s evolutionary strategy. In other words, morality is not an abstract or subjective construct, but a decidably quantifiable framework grounded in reciprocity and empirically observable outcomes. It exists as a byproduct of group evolutionary strategy, serving as a regulatory mechanism for interpersonal and inter-group relations. Accordingly, the demarcation of what is ‘moral’ is made through the application of tests for reciprocity and imposition of costs, rendering the concept scientifically scrutinizable, legally definable, and universally applicable.”

    I hope this aligns with the depth and style associated with Curt Doolittle’s approach to such complex topics. Feel free to critique or question any aspect of this definition.

    Reply addressees: @ezra_tezra @adominguez792 @BronskiJoseph


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-15 20:18:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713650626926612480

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713649463586074957

  • (hystereical Chat GPT) CURT’S EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCES WRITTEN BY GPT FOR A FI

    (hystereical Chat GPT)
    CURT’S EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCES WRITTEN BY GPT FOR A FIVE YEAR OLD. 😉

    –“I wish in the bottom of these explanations you’d put a simple conclusion that dumb/less informed people can understand.”- Alejandro

    –“Paste it into chap gpt, tell it to simplify… https://t.co/pDsEwDEtgZ


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-15 20:14:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713649525405929929

  • (hmm…. not a bad suggestion)

    (hmm…. not a bad suggestion)


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-15 20:07:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713647703803003117

    Reply addressees: @adominguez792 @ezra_tezra @BronskiJoseph

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713636833920184532

  • It’s perfect. lol. That’s awesome. 😉

    It’s perfect. lol. That’s awesome. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-15 20:06:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713647648543281478

    Reply addressees: @therminium @ezra_tezra @adominguez792 @BronskiJoseph

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713641286031344111

  • This is a repetition of a regular study that was first observed in the 1800s. I

    This is a repetition of a regular study that was first observed in the 1800s.

    I try to use this example to demonstrate that neural conductivity in humans like resistance in cables follows exactly the same physical law. And that by and large IQ is the absence of resistance in the recursive hierarchy of the neocortex in proportion to brain volume.

    Yes, it really is that simple.

    The major variables are that genetics are recombinant and probabilistic not deterministic, and the in utero environment amplifies or resists this probability as neural stem cells migrate from the neural tube into place then each axon seeks a one of thirty odd molecules like hunters, causing connectivity between brain regions. Add that females are laterally maximizing connections and empathising in time (prey) and males are longitudinally compartmentalising and systematising over time (predator) then you understand the foundations of our differences in human behaviour as a division of labor in time, space, and population.

    Reply addressees: @ezra_tezra @BronskiJoseph


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-15 19:17:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713635202944073728

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713621414115238169

  • Correction: introversion -> introgression ( autocorrect error)

    Correction: introversion -> introgression ( autocorrect error)


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-15 19:05:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713632171607339095

    Reply addressees: @DavidDa111877

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713631703284007178


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    It turns out that the female > feminine > Jewish >abrahamic > Marxist sequence is just genetic expression. And introversion of both simultaneously was a combination we were no more prepared for that the same technique of colonizing women and slaves in Rome leading to the same civilisational decline and the eventual Christian destruction of the ancient world by the undermining of duty to the commons, reason, philosophy closure of the schools, killing or outcasting the philosophers, forcibly converting the epicureans to monasteries, destroying all references to the epic cycle: the natural European bible the bible was used to replace, tearing down temples (banks), destroying the arts and literatures, and preventing the restoration of Roman civ after the barbarian invasions.

    No I don’t err. This is the cause. If voting records and dominance of education and special pleading in the law aren’t enough then you’re demonstrating bias not interpreting evidence.

    Fool me once, fool me twice…

    This time is twice.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1713631703284007178