Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Metaphysics: We Sense the World Fine.

    METAPHYSICS: WE SENSE THE WORLD FINE. WE FILL IN THE BLANKS LESS SO

    —“Curt, how do you deal with the “we can’t trust our senses so we have no idea what reality consists of” argument? I.e. how can we determine if sensory information is false?”—

    [T]here is no evidence that we can’t trust our senses at human scale. So we perceive the world as it exists but at the scale and velocity of our perception. We have to defend against our cognitive biases that evolved at human scale . Or more simply, we SENSE the world just fine. We often PERCEIVE the world with error. We improve our perception with more information. we improve it further with falsification (tests of our cognitive biases). And we use instrumentation to EXTEND those perceptions. So it’s not true that we sense the world incorrectly. We appear to sense it (at human scale) quite accurately, and we tend to perceive it (at human scale) fairly accurately. But we ‘fill in the blanks’ with lots of error. So we have to make sure we aren’t filling in the blanks with error.

  • Metaphysics: We Sense the World Fine.

    METAPHYSICS: WE SENSE THE WORLD FINE. WE FILL IN THE BLANKS LESS SO

    —“Curt, how do you deal with the “we can’t trust our senses so we have no idea what reality consists of” argument? I.e. how can we determine if sensory information is false?”—

    [T]here is no evidence that we can’t trust our senses at human scale. So we perceive the world as it exists but at the scale and velocity of our perception. We have to defend against our cognitive biases that evolved at human scale . Or more simply, we SENSE the world just fine. We often PERCEIVE the world with error. We improve our perception with more information. we improve it further with falsification (tests of our cognitive biases). And we use instrumentation to EXTEND those perceptions. So it’s not true that we sense the world incorrectly. We appear to sense it (at human scale) quite accurately, and we tend to perceive it (at human scale) fairly accurately. But we ‘fill in the blanks’ with lots of error. So we have to make sure we aren’t filling in the blanks with error.

  • CLOSE, BUT IT”S NOT JUST MATH, BUT ALGORITHMIC (OPERATIONAL). —“My sense is th

    CLOSE, BUT IT”S NOT JUST MATH, BUT ALGORITHMIC (OPERATIONAL).

    —“My sense is that Curt is more mathematically and scientifically oriented than he is literarily oriented. His syntax is almost algebraic at times.”— Joel Harvey

    That’s correct. I actually write in programmatic statements just like we write software. So

    |PARADIGMS(GRAMMARS)| Fictional (inflationary) > Literary(Meaningful) > testimonial(descriptive) > Algorithmic (programmatic, operations) > Scientific (correlative, statistical) > Logical (sets) > Mathematical (units).

    In fact, my writing looks almost identical to my pseudocode.

    I was taught in the era where we wrote pseudocode (outline in english) first to think through the logic, and in doing so write documentation, then to write the code itself (transactions).

    So yes, that is why you see what you see.

    And it is why I understood the possibility of algorithmic language of law….

    So there you go. Like I said. The reason I was able to complete Hayek’s program i is because I was born AFTER Turing and hayek was born BEFORE Turing.

    Now if I could just explain to all Austrians that austrian econ is the LAW of Economics rather than economics proper, they would understand both their discipline and what I have done with it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 08:22:00 UTC

  • METAPHYSICS: WE SENSE THE WORLD FINE. WE FILL IN THE BLANKS LESS SO —“Curt, ho

    METAPHYSICS: WE SENSE THE WORLD FINE. WE FILL IN THE BLANKS LESS SO

    —“Curt, how do you deal with the “we can’t trust our senses so we have no idea what reality consists of” argument? I.e. how can we determine if sensory information is false?”—

    There is no evidence that we can’t trust our senses at human scale.

    So we perceive the world as it exists but at the scale and velocity of our perception.

    We have to defend against our cognitive biases that evolved at human scale . Or more simply, we SENSE the world just fine. We often PERCEIVE the world with error.

    We improve our perception with more information. we improve it further with falsification (tests of our cognitive biases). And we use instrumentation to EXTEND those perceptions.

    So it’s not true that we sense the world incorrectly. We appear to sense it (at human scale) quite accurately, and we tend to perceive it (at human scale) fairly accurately.

    But we ‘fill in the blanks’ with lots of error.

    So we have to make sure we aren’t filling in the blanks with error.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 05:47:00 UTC

  • Incremental Suppression.

    Incremental Suppression. Everyone wants to preserve their way of deceit in the current era. Just as people wanted to preserve their way of fraud in the recent era. Just as people wanted to preserve their way of violence in the prior era. Just as people wanted to preserve their way of theft in the previous era. Just as people wanted to preserve their way of murder in the previous era. Just because  you don’t want to give up your cherished falsehoods, doesn’t mean it’s  not good for you and every ne else to do so.    

  • Incremental Suppression.

    Incremental Suppression. Everyone wants to preserve their way of deceit in the current era. Just as people wanted to preserve their way of fraud in the recent era. Just as people wanted to preserve their way of violence in the prior era. Just as people wanted to preserve their way of theft in the previous era. Just as people wanted to preserve their way of murder in the previous era. Just because  you don’t want to give up your cherished falsehoods, doesn’t mean it’s  not good for you and every ne else to do so.    

  • Everyone wants to preserve their way of deceit in the current era. Just as peopl

    Everyone wants to preserve their way of deceit in the current era.

    Just as people wanted to preserve their way of fraud in the recent era.

    Just as people wanted to preserve their way of violence in the prior era.

    Just as people wanted to preserve their way of theft in the previous era.

    Just as people wanted to preserve their way of murder in the previous era.

    Incremental Suppression.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-31 12:49:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism: Our Definition of ‘Grammar’

    October 30th, 2018 11:12 AM PROPERTARIANISM: OUR DEFINITION OF ‘GRAMMAR’ (very important)

    –“Curt, How do you use grammar differently from the norm?”– A Friend.

    CURRENT: – Chomsky’s Grammar Facility (biological) of “Recursive Disambiguation” …. – Languages …. …. – Vocabulary …. …. …. – Semantics …. …. – Grammar …. …. …. – Phonology, Morphology, Syntax … This is the traditional undrestanding of grammar, even though the original term referred to a book containing the rules of the given language. PROPERTARIANISM “The Grammars” as I use them: – Chomsky’s Grammar Facility (biological) of “CONTINUOUS Recursive Disambiguation”. …. – The DIMENSIONAL Grammars (spectrum of dimensions allowed) …. …. – Languages …. …. …. – Vocabulary LIMITED by dimensional grammar. …. …. …. …. – Paradigm (network of constant relations) …. …. …. …. …. – Semantics LIMITED by dimensional grammar …. …. …. – TRANSACTIONAL Grammar …. …. …. …. – Phonology, Morphology, Syntax … etc. WHERE The DIMENSIONAL GRAMMARS Consist of no less than: – identity (property), logic (consistency) – arithmetic and accounting – mathematics, geometry, calculus, statistics – algorithm, computation, transaction, sentience, consciousness, reason, calculation – physics , chemistry, biology-ecology – contract, testimony, law – psychology, sociology, politics, economics – ordinary language (conversation) – narration, – story telling (plot) – myth, parable, (lesson) – fictionalisms (ideal-mental, magical-physical, supernatural-emotional) – Deceits (loading, framing, obscurantism … etc.) AND WHERE Each ‘grammar’ consist of the means of testing internal consistency (decidability) in the process of speech (continuous recursive disambiguation) while producing transactions (descriptions of changes in state). Cheers Curt Doolittle

  • Everything is simple

    October 30th, 2018 10:48 AM “JUSTIFY VS RATIONALIZE” (vocabulary) [W]e justify by rational (internally consistent) means using reason (our ability to compare and decide) due to our logical (biological) facility, which we try to study in that discipline we call ‘logic’, which is nothing more than the grammar of constant relations between terms (references). The thing is that ‘rational’ is a heavily conflated term. So for clarity I avoid rationalize (which is value neutral) and use justify (which is not). |LOGIC| Logical Facility > Reason(Comparison) > Rationalism (Internal Consistency) > Calculation (Transformation) > Computation (Construction). Everything is simple. – Vitruvianism makes metaphysics simple. – The grammars make ‘thinking’ (reason) simple. – Acquisitionism makes psychology simple. – Compatibilism makes sociology simple – Propertarianism makes ethics and law simple. – Group Competitive Strategy makes Government Simple. – All of the above make Aesthetics simple. Everything is simple. A continuous, consistent, grammar of comprehension from the physical to the social to the personal to the mental.

  • The Grammar Used Tells You Everything About the Argument Used.

    October 30th, 2018 10:07 AM IT’S NOT COMPLICATED:

    Law       (Science)............= Testimony (Measurements)
Philosophy(Rationalism)........= Excuse    (Justifications)
Theology  (Fictionalism).......= Fiction   (Deception)

    The Grammar Used Tells You Everything About The Argument Used.