Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • I just want to point out that hoppe refers to economic science (falsification) b

    I just want to point out that hoppe refers to economic science (falsification) but he himself relies entirely upon economic rationalism (justification), And he confuses philosophical positivism (which never occurred) with scientific skepticism (which is how science is practiced). What’s the difference? Justification (excuse making) = bottom up rationalization. Positivism = justification through empiricism (top down). Science: a MARKET for ‘recipes’, where the stories (theories) provide searches (opportunities) for applications of the recipe, and where application of the recipe refines or falsifies the searches (opportunities). Science functions as just another market for actions (recipes). A market laundered of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit by the continual use of measurements in a competition between logical (mental) and physical instruments.

  • I just want to point out that hoppe refers to economic science (falsification) b

    I just want to point out that hoppe refers to economic science (falsification) but he himself relies entirely upon economic rationalism (justification), And he confuses philosophical positivism (which never occurred) with scientific skepticism (which is how science is practiced). What’s the difference? Justification (excuse making) = bottom up rationalization. Positivism = justification through empiricism (top down). Science: a MARKET for ‘recipes’, where the stories (theories) provide searches (opportunities) for applications of the recipe, and where application of the recipe refines or falsifies the searches (opportunities). Science functions as just another market for actions (recipes). A market laundered of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit by the continual use of measurements in a competition between logical (mental) and physical instruments.

  • “Occultism to some people seems to be an intellectual diabetes from having too m

    —“Occultism to some people seems to be an intellectual diabetes from having too much time and too little responsibility in their lives. Who has time to invest in such stupid crap? I mean, I have kids for Christ’s sake. And a job, and I’m enrolled in university courses in the meantime. My demand for practical utility and therefore empirical truth, is very noticeably higher than that of childless consumers of intellectual narcotics.”— A Friend

    Literature of escapism comes in many forms. ‘Philosophy’ and ‘essay’ is one of them.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-20 07:52:00 UTC

  • “Occultism to some people seems to be an intellectual diabetes from having too m

    —“Occultism to some people seems to be an intellectual diabetes from having too much time and too little responsibility in their lives. Who has time to invest in such stupid crap? I mean, I have kids for Christ’s sake. And a job, and I’m enrolled in university courses in the meantime. My demand for practical utility and therefore empirical truth, is very noticeably higher than that of childless consumers of intellectual narcotics.”— A Friend Literature of escapism comes in many forms. ‘Philosophy’ and ‘essay’ is one of them.

  • “Occultism to some people seems to be an intellectual diabetes from having too m

    —“Occultism to some people seems to be an intellectual diabetes from having too much time and too little responsibility in their lives. Who has time to invest in such stupid crap? I mean, I have kids for Christ’s sake. And a job, and I’m enrolled in university courses in the meantime. My demand for practical utility and therefore empirical truth, is very noticeably higher than that of childless consumers of intellectual narcotics.”— A Friend Literature of escapism comes in many forms. ‘Philosophy’ and ‘essay’ is one of them.

  • “Curt can you point us in the direction of where we could find proofs or researc

    —“Curt can you point us in the direction of where we could find proofs or research for this?”–Rob McMullan

    RE: <“Different cultures do rely on different methods of argument, semantic relations, and definitions of truth. West is uniquely empirical: externally correspondent. All others rely on some version of wisdom literature.”>

    Um. I draw from so many disciplines and try to provide commensurability across them. And while there exist works on comparative religion, comparative mythology, comparative law, comparative literature, comparative linguistics, I do not know of anyone who has reduced the analysis to the dimensions of reality, the dimensions of argument, and provided comparative definitions of truth (other than perhaps the work by Fukuyama), or of argument in those dimensions, nor comparative definitions of methods of argument other than law. (Even if it is law that determines the method of argument of each people.) THis is why science has evolved into the universal language: that truth and argument are also possible to state in universally commensurable terms regardless of the methods of argument in different civilizations.

    So, aside from Fukuyama and Huntington, I don’t know who else to recommend.

    I mean, the idea of competing or comparative ‘sciences’ is kind of nonsense, really. Measurements are either universally commensurable or they aren’t measurements.

    All other authors are comparing differences, and some are explaining why those historical differences evolved.

    I’m explaining why ALL those differences exist and what those differences are capable of producing.

    And that by continuing the pursuit of truth we discover that the reason for western advancement in the ancient in modern world is purely scientific. (real).

    Truth. Markets. Eugenics.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-19 18:18:00 UTC

  • “Curt can you point us in the direction of where we could find proofs or researc

    —“Curt can you point us in the direction of where we could find proofs or research for this?”–Rob McMullan RE: <“Different cultures do rely on different methods of argument, semantic relations, and definitions of truth. West is uniquely empirical: externally correspondent. All others rely on some version of wisdom literature.”> Um. I draw from so many disciplines and try to provide commensurability across them. And while there exist works on comparative religion, comparative mythology, comparative law, comparative literature, comparative linguistics, I do not know of anyone who has reduced the analysis to the dimensions of reality, the dimensions of argument, and provided comparative definitions of truth (other than perhaps the work by Fukuyama), or of argument in those dimensions, nor comparative definitions of methods of argument other than law. (Even if it is law that determines the method of argument of each people.) THis is why science has evolved into the universal language: that truth and argument are also possible to state in universally commensurable terms regardless of the methods of argument in different civilizations. So, aside from Fukuyama and Huntington, I don’t know who else to recommend. I mean, the idea of competing or comparative ‘sciences’ is kind of nonsense, really. Measurements are either universally commensurable or they aren’t measurements. All other authors are comparing differences, and some are explaining why those historical differences evolved. I’m explaining why ALL those differences exist and what those differences are capable of producing. And that by continuing the pursuit of truth we discover that the reason for western advancement in the ancient in modern world is purely scientific. (real). Truth. Markets. Eugenics.

  • “Curt can you point us in the direction of where we could find proofs or researc

    —“Curt can you point us in the direction of where we could find proofs or research for this?”–Rob McMullan RE: <“Different cultures do rely on different methods of argument, semantic relations, and definitions of truth. West is uniquely empirical: externally correspondent. All others rely on some version of wisdom literature.”> Um. I draw from so many disciplines and try to provide commensurability across them. And while there exist works on comparative religion, comparative mythology, comparative law, comparative literature, comparative linguistics, I do not know of anyone who has reduced the analysis to the dimensions of reality, the dimensions of argument, and provided comparative definitions of truth (other than perhaps the work by Fukuyama), or of argument in those dimensions, nor comparative definitions of methods of argument other than law. (Even if it is law that determines the method of argument of each people.) THis is why science has evolved into the universal language: that truth and argument are also possible to state in universally commensurable terms regardless of the methods of argument in different civilizations. So, aside from Fukuyama and Huntington, I don’t know who else to recommend. I mean, the idea of competing or comparative ‘sciences’ is kind of nonsense, really. Measurements are either universally commensurable or they aren’t measurements. All other authors are comparing differences, and some are explaining why those historical differences evolved. I’m explaining why ALL those differences exist and what those differences are capable of producing. And that by continuing the pursuit of truth we discover that the reason for western advancement in the ancient in modern world is purely scientific. (real). Truth. Markets. Eugenics.

  • thx. 😉 Once you understand the technical aspect of my work you will understand

    thx. 😉 Once you understand the technical aspect of my work you will understand my criticism of mises. You might be more forgiving than I am. But then, I probably should blame rothbard more and jewish culture even more so, than I blame Mises for having tried and failed.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-19 03:35:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/932089859518410752

    Reply addressees: @Voltaire1778__8

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/930512864502321153

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/930512864502321153

  • Click for video: photos_and_videos/videos/10000000_148836895867664_3674976831108

    Click for video: photos_and_videos/videos/10000000_148836895867664_3674976831108284416_n_10155887857227264.mp4 Group: Meta /// ChanCurt DoolittleSorry all. RestartingNov 16, 2017 4:42pmGroup: Meta /// ChanOliver Westcottconnection broke at exactly the time bitcoin broke a new high lolNov 16, 2017 4:42pmGroup: Meta /// ChanDavid StennettIf you are familiar with meta programming languages, you’ll see that while you can create a very unique and open language, it still requires a prime mover to create certain patterns — most AI is pattern based, and will only go so far as the patterns included. However, AI is awesome is going to get smarter than most drooling hairless bi-peds drooling over TV shows.Nov 16, 2017 4:44pmGroup: Meta /// ChanDavid StennettWhat is the business objective of AI … to reduce workforce? Or just bragging rights? Or is there some other driving force behind AI? We can obviously follow the obvious conclusion that AI might go “skynet” on us so why would we pursue it? (and I’m listening, answer when you want).Nov 16, 2017 4:50pmGroup: Meta /// ChanEric BumpusCompetition. Interesting.Nov 16, 2017 4:54pmGroup: Meta /// ChanDavid StennettCool, thank you.Nov 16, 2017 4:54pmGroup: Meta /// ChanEric BumpusWhat about game theory and it decides to work together.Nov 16, 2017 4:54pmGroup: Meta /// ChanDavid StennettGood point.Nov 16, 2017 4:56pmGroup: Meta /// ChanArthur RoddamWhats up Curt! Just saying hi brother.Nov 16, 2017 4:57pmGroup: Meta /// ChanEric BumpusIsnt that why they we shut off the other AI bc of secret languages?Nov 16, 2017 4:57pmGroup: Meta /// ChanEric Bumpusfor efficiency.Nov 16, 2017 4:57pmGroup: Meta /// ChanEric BumpusI see makes sense.Nov 16, 2017 4:58pmGroup: Meta /// ChanEric BumpusEnergy consumption?Nov 16, 2017 4:59pmGroup: Meta /// ChanDavid StennettWould cyborg enhancement be more reasonable (and useful) … good old CarWars style?Nov 16, 2017 5:00pmGroup: Meta /// ChanEric BumpusSo are we even close to it being usable in any way then, with hardware limitations?Nov 16, 2017 5:00pmGroup: Meta /// ChanDavid StennettI’m probably 85 so I need help :PNov 16, 2017 5:02pmGroup: Meta /// ChanOliver Westcottliterary or spatial?Nov 16, 2017 5:03pmGroup: Meta /// ChanEric BumpusI think you’re right. Thank you.Nov 16, 2017 5:06pmGroup: Meta /// ChanCurt Doolittletrying to reconnectNov 16, 2017 5:08pmGroup: Meta /// ChanCurt Doolittle@[611676488:2048:David] purpose of AI?

    Here’s a guide http://www.newsweek.com/hedge-fund-numerai-crowdsourced-machine-intelligence-635388Nov 16, 2017 5:10pmGroup: Meta /// ChanEric BumpusIts a mix of Prefrontal cortex and Amygdala thinking.Nov 16, 2017 5:14pmGroup: Meta /// ChanEric BumpusIts goodNov 16, 2017 5:15pmGroup: Meta /// ChanOliver Westcottsound is goodNov 16, 2017 5:16pmGroup: Meta /// ChanSteven KolpekGood evening, gentlemen.Nov 16, 2017 5:18pmGroup: Meta /// ChanOliver Westcotthi curt. love you manNov 16, 2017 5:18pmGroup: Meta /// ChanEric BumpusThank you both for taking the time to speak with us. Its much appreciated!Nov 16, 2017 5:18pmGroup: Meta /// ChanDavid StennettWhat do you think of Shultz’s rabid anti-white leftism? ;-)Nov 16, 2017 5:19pmGroup: Meta /// ChanEric BumpusWhat do you think about CRISPR and Biohacking?Nov 16, 2017 5:20pmGroup: Meta /// ChanEric BumpusDo you think biohacking should be available to the general public?Nov 16, 2017 5:24pmGroup: Meta /// ChanDavid StennettThank you to you both. =bNov 16, 2017 5:25pmGroup: Meta /// ChanBrandon VaughnHave you guys discussed the whole “time isn’t real” issue here? I just got here.Nov 16, 2017 5:25pmGroup: Meta /// ChanOliver Westcottciao lads, have a good evening.Nov 16, 2017 5:37pmGroup: Meta /// ChanAdam Jacob Robert WalkerIt was a bad day for me to almost go over on my data. I missed all of this at the time. 😞Nov 16, 2017 6:23pmGroup: Meta /// ChanTom TomorrowThere is also a video down below (there are two separate videos).Nov 16, 2017 6:28pmGroup: Meta /// ChanAdam Jacob Robert Walker@[605597:2048:Kashif Vikaas] Thank bud.Nov 16, 2017 6:28pmGroup: Meta /// ChanBobby CorneliusOy GoyNov 16, 2017 11:12pmGroup: Meta /// ChanRyan DollOh shit is that Arn Anderson?Nov 17, 2017 2:40pmGroup: Meta /// ChanCurt DoolittleKinfolk. ;)Nov 17, 2017 7:08pm

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-16 16:41:00 UTC