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

  • Joslin Demonstrates The Argument

    October 30th, 2018 12:24 PM by Bill Joslin [T]ruth, as a semantic axiom, with limitless constellations of interpretive frames. Correspondence presumes an existential frame. An existential frame provides a means of checking and vetting outside of the presumptions of the context one might bring to an assertion – that being testability of its existence. This testability then defines the methodology. The methodology then presumes the existential frame and uses said method to update the interpretive frame. By doing so a feedback between interpretation, methodology occurs and is measured by existence (what can be measured or observed – and how) this allows both the interpretive frame and methodology to be updated (both are provisional). This affords the most robust means of coherence to truth (small ‘t’ truth) in the context of truth as a semantic axiom i.e truthful and honest reporting. (CD: when you can understand and make that argument on your own, ” you are there “.

  • Joslin Demonstrates The Argument

    October 30th, 2018 12:24 PM by Bill Joslin [T]ruth, as a semantic axiom, with limitless constellations of interpretive frames. Correspondence presumes an existential frame. An existential frame provides a means of checking and vetting outside of the presumptions of the context one might bring to an assertion – that being testability of its existence. This testability then defines the methodology. The methodology then presumes the existential frame and uses said method to update the interpretive frame. By doing so a feedback between interpretation, methodology occurs and is measured by existence (what can be measured or observed – and how) this allows both the interpretive frame and methodology to be updated (both are provisional). This affords the most robust means of coherence to truth (small ‘t’ truth) in the context of truth as a semantic axiom i.e truthful and honest reporting. (CD: when you can understand and make that argument on your own, ” you are there “.

  • “Curt: Is Your Language Pseudo-Scientific?”

    October 30th, 2018 11:25 AM “CURT: IS YOUR LANGUAGE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC?” (no, but it’s a very good question that deserves an answer)

    —-“I enjoy your humanist stance Curt Doolittle and with most of your ideas I find myself in concordance. My only caveat with your performance is this psuedo-scientific language – almost every other word is some phrase or term of references, especially from the realm of psychology. “— Christian Kalafut

    Christian, Excellent (not unique, but rare) and worthy criticism. Well done. This (vocabulary) is always a problem when trying to provide the only non-nonsensical model of philosophy, which is to reorganize properties, categories, relations, and values in response to advances in knowledge. Every theorist (‘Reformer’ is my prefer term) who attempts to increase the coherence between science and vernacular, across the fields is faced with the challenge of new terms (neologisms), redefining terms, and preserving terms, and doing so sufficiently that he’s free of criticism. To unite all the fields I had to create a common language, and so I appropriated the terms from each that were the ‘least wrong’ and created definitions in series to deflate them. I rely on one spectrum from cognitive science (psychosis <-> autism) by Baron Cohen, and I map demonstrated interests (that which we demonstrate we treat as property by defending), -> to moral bias (Hadit), -> to stages of the prey drive, -> to reward systems, -> to personality traits, -> to gender differences in brain structure resulting in that spectrum. This changes the content (model) of the behavioral vocabulary in ‘psychology’ from projection(imagination via sympathy and conformity) to demonstration (observation: science, and a division of cognitive labor). Thereby reforming psychology from projection to demonstration to physical construction and operation (neural economy) This cognitive division of labor is what I use as the basis of reforming ‘sociology’ under what I call Compatibilism(market) rather than Equality(monopoly) – and the competition between the classes, which serves as a further extension of perception and cognition to the group, wherein the group performs ‘calculation’ of ‘the good (the interest of the polity)’ by continuous tests of voluntary cooperation (reciprocity) – thereby EXPANDING the neural economy from the individual to the group, tribe, nation, civilization, mankind. And to ameliorate this competition between individuals and groups at all scales i use international law (demonstrated means of voluntary cooperation) under reciprocity as the ‘equals sign’ of human action. This results in ‘Natural Law’ as the means of assisting in calculation (cooperation at scale). And it changes from the via positiva of conformity and suppression of individual preference to preserve costly cooperation (antiquity) to the via negativa of conflict suppression and increase in individual preference to take advantage of cheap cooperation (modernity). This changes the discipline we call sociology to observation of agents with partial information thereby uniting psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy – providing a single language and model of all human behavior from the neurological to the international. As far as I know, further increases in the precision of this model will have no impact on decidability provided by it just as newtonian physics is sufficient for all human scale decidability despite increases in precision provided by einstein physics at prior and post human scale. And this is sufficient because humans can only act at human scale, regardless of their perceptions. So, while it is takes a HUGE vocabulary reformation (models of properties, categories, relations, and values) to change from the projections to demonstrations, and from monopoly to markets of behavior, and from static consensus to evolutionary calculation – thereby altering our ENTIRE body of knowledge to reflect the model of ECONOMICS(darwin/markets/equilibrium) that is true, rather than MATHEMATICS (christian/monopolies/equalities) that is false. So yes, as always, in every era (rational(Greek), empirical(early british), scientific(Darwin – european), technological(Turing-Chomsky-anglo american), and now ‘economic-neurological’ (me)), we require a reformation of our network of ideas, and yes it is a costly reformation, because it requires a lot of re-learning. I don’t claim to be a great communicator. I just claim to be correct. 　

    —“My only complaint aside, you’re very interesting and I would love to chat with you!”—

    Any time. 　

    —“Final ?: Have you read Barzun?”—

    I don’t’ find essayists interesting, because i am painfully empirical, and while I can absorb information endlessly I get very ‘tired’ with sentimental prose including value judgements loading and framing. So while I know of some of his ideas, I don’t find them helpful at my level of inquiry (free association, reason, calculation, and computation). In general I just read science and history and unfortunately not only have I lost the ability to suspend disbelief in fiction, I have lost the ability to suspend judgement in essay form, and in both cases, I find it tedious and painful (like listening to gossip.) That isn’t a good thing but it’s a consequence of doing my work for so many years. So that’s why I tell people, I do science, write law, using the rhetorical structure of philosophy and do so to end deceit by pseudoscience (sophism of the technical), philosophy(sophism of the rational) and theology (sophism of the mythological), Cheers.