Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • MORE ON TRUTH: OBJECTIVE VS SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE (Constructive/Justificationary)

    MORE ON TRUTH: OBJECTIVE VS SCIENTIFIC

    OBJECTIVE (Constructive/Justificationary) – Kantian Rationalism

    – vs. –

    SCIENTIFIC (Deflationary / Falsificationary) – Darwinian/Popperian Science

    1) A justificationary argument would rely on claims of objectivity. (via-positiva)

    2) A deflationary argument would rely on elimination of subjective information. (via-negativa)

    3) We achieve Deflationary (~Objective) speech by removing all subjective content from our speech.

    4) We remove all subjective content from our speech by

    (a) fully expanding all sentences.

    (b) translating those expanded sentences into fully operational language.

    (c) Testing each dimension of perceivable reality for consistency (determinism)

    …i) categorical consistency (identity)

    …ii) internal consistency (logical)

    …iii) external correspondence (empirical consistency)

    …iv) existential consistency (operational language)

    …v) rational consistency (rational choice of rational actor)

    …vi) reciprocal consistency (rational choice of all participating actors)

    …vii) scope consistency (limits of proposition, and full accounting of internal properties and external consequences.)

    (d) Restating the sentence with surviving and failed tests of consistency as a test of coherence.

    6) this process will, in ordinary language, provide tests of whether the speaker in fact understands what he speaks, and that his speech is correspondent, consistent, and coherent in all dimensions. Because it is, as far as I know, impossible to state a coherent and false statement and survive these tests, while at the same time claiming it is ‘truthful’ rather than theoretical, hypothetical, or a guess.

    –“every claim we make”–

    (a) It means that within the LIMITS we assume or propose it is possible to speak truthfully, even if in the ideal sense – unlimited, and ideal truth – we cannot speak ‘the truth’.

    (b) All speech is theoretical but some theoretical speech is trivial (non contradictory, or with implied limits).

    —“Brain in a vat”–

    Rationalist error. since no logic of any dimension (identity, logic, empirical, operational, reciprocal) is sufficient for truth claims, only for tests of internal consistency, then all ordinary language tests must appeal to the next higher dimension (at least – if not all) in order to make truth claim (rather than a proof claim).

    It is very common for rationalists used to justificationary statements, to conflate proof (internal consistency) with truthfulness (consistency, correspondence, and coherence), with True(ideal), and True(analytic).

    So unless you know which ‘true’ you’re using, most rational arguments are just victorian word games.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 12:02:00 UTC

  • “The problem of the West is not that we haven’t been deceived by the ‘proper’ se

    —“The problem of the West is not that we haven’t been deceived by the ‘proper’ set of lies, but that we haven’t yet learned to identify sophisticated forms of deception.”— James Augustus

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 02:56:00 UTC

  • “Curt, to what extent do you agree with this quote? “[W]e mean by any concept no

    —“Curt, to what extent do you agree with this quote? “[W]e mean by any concept nothing more than a set of operations; the concept is synonymous with the corresponding set of operations””—Bob Robertson

    Um. Great question. I understand what the author means but it’s not stated correctly.

    “We mean that any concept that one understands enough to make a truth claim can be described as a set of testable operations – and if one doesn’t describe it as such, or if it cannot be expressed as such, then either one cannot claim one understands his claim enough to speak truthfully, or one is in fact speaking untruthfully.”

    After saying that,

    “We use very precise ‘meanings’ by translating into and working with concepts that consist of nothing more than a set of operations expressed in an operational grammar – wherein the concept is synonymous with the corresponding set of operations stated in that grammar.”

    So yes, as the author means it, it’s correct. As the author STATES it, it’s not sufficient. As not sufficient it’s not quite true.

    But this was a good opportunity to correct it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 02:12:00 UTC

  • I FEEL I NEED TO REMIND YOU OF SOMETHING (MEANING VS TRUE) I am trying to end th

    I FEEL I NEED TO REMIND YOU OF SOMETHING (MEANING VS TRUE)

    I am trying to end the ability to lie to my high trust people and to manipulate them into ignorance, stagnation, and genocide by means of suggestion using the invention of abrahamism.

    So while you might find something MEANINGFUL and there fore valuable, I am conducting a FULL ACCOUNTING of the consequences of your producing, communicating, and obtaining MEANING by the various modes of communication.

    So, yes, while I understand you may like heavily loaded emotional expression and the free association that is invoked by taking you close to the dream state, I also know that you are suggestible in that state, and that through suggestion you can obtain meaning at the cost of implanting in you things that seed your destruction.

    This is the secret to abrahamism.

    This is why I am trying to kill abrahamism: because it is a method of deception. And this is why I am trying to destroy platonism: because it is a means of obscuring one’s ignorance.

    So when I say something against christianity, or nietzsche, or evola, or any of the european philosophers and … fuzzy thinkers… it’s because they are more heavily infected with abrahamism and platonism than are the Americans, who are tediously reduced to little other than law: the constitution is a bible.

    In other words THE PRICE OF EASY KNOWLEDGE more readily intuited is far higher than the benefit you obtain by the discounted method of communication.

    You were taught to read, to measure, to do simple mathematics, to do complex mathematics, and to do basic human scale physics, and to at least understand biology and chemistry and micro and macro physics. And if you were very lucky you might have been taught the basics of money, accounting, finance, economics. And rarely the practice and use of law.

    So why is it that you feel you can learn morality by simply literature?

    WHy isn’t morality calculable as is every other field.

    It is. But it’s harder to access. It’s harder to learn. It’s harder to use. It’s far more like understanding how to program computers with a very limited vocabulary and a very limited set of possible operations and only one method of comparison: reciprocity.

    So while I am slaying your sacred cows and the investments you have made in obtaining meaning that is easy and emotionally entangled for you, the purpose is moral and profound

    To save you and our people from deceit and extermination.

    And the cost is merely learning how to ‘read’, write, listen and speak in very simple language. A language that makes it very hard to lie.

    And if you are unwilling to pay that cost, then you are part of the reason we have been defeated by abrahamists in the ancient world, and more recently in the modern.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 18:30:00 UTC

  • WHY IS PHILOSOPHY EVEN AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE? One could argue that philosophy t

    WHY IS PHILOSOPHY EVEN AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE?

    One could argue that philosophy treat its publications as does mathematics, with prohibiting publications of work by those still in the process of getting an education.

    Although papers in mathematics are far less embarrassing than papers in philosophy, history, and literature. I mean, I have no idea what submissions look like to you, but every time I go through a stack of publications I’m horrified by the quality of the work. Until philosophy follows physics and psychology into the use of operational language – which is what I work on – the discipline will continue to produce thirty one flavors – permutations – of expression of the same concepts producing little more than alternative decorations of the same furniture.

    I mean, what philosophy of any substance has been produced in the past decade? I am not sure that since Kripke, anyone has said anything of substance. And Even Kripke is better explained by Turing and Godel.)

    I fact, the only meaningful work of philosophy that I know of was produced in psychology by Haidt, who connected political behavior to moral intuitions to evolutionary biology and brain structures.

    And so, why would anyone study something other than cognitive science, experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, economics, the common law, and voting patterns – other than to continue a century of what appears to be malinvestment in pseudo-scientific fantasy moral literature?

    I mean, isn’t your article’s argument nothing more than one of creating a narrow monopoly for the purpose of rent seeking? That’s basic economics.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 09:31:00 UTC

  • “Wishful thinking is just intellectual free riding”—Ryan Williams (brilliant)

    —“Wishful thinking is just intellectual free riding”—Ryan Williams

    (brilliant)

    I suppose now I have to go thru and express ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and obscurantism, fictionalism , and deceit in the same terms…… Thanks Ryan. As if I didn’t have enough work to do. 😉 (great insight)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 19:41:00 UTC

  • GOAL: EMPOWERING YOU Just to hammer home the point, my original intention was to

    GOAL: EMPOWERING YOU

    Just to hammer home the point, my original intention was to create a value neutral language for the articulation and comparison of group, political, moral and ethical differences.

    So that I try to do by *defining series* – to articulate causal relations that are not possible with using terminological *ideal types*.

    So I hope to be able to arm you and the many like you with terms, series, and their relations (concepts), so that those ideas you ‘intuit but have difficulty expressing’ can be expressed with greater ease.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 19:07:00 UTC

  • THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONVEYING MEANING AND TRUTH: Full accounting

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONVEYING MEANING AND TRUTH:

    Full accounting.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:35:00 UTC

  • THE NONSENSE OF JUSTIFICATIONISM LIVES ON JUSTIFICATION = COMPLIANCE with moral,

    THE NONSENSE OF JUSTIFICATIONISM LIVES ON

    JUSTIFICATION = COMPLIANCE with moral, legal, or scriptural ‘law’.

    All justificationism is false. We obtain permission or avoid blame thru justification limited to our senses.

    COMPETITION = SURVIVAL from criticism.

    Only “competitionism” is true. We identify truth candidates through survival (criticism) beyond the limits of our senses.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 09:26:00 UTC

  • TRUTH TAKES MORE GUTS THAN YOU’VE GOT, I BET. Do you have any idea how difficult

    TRUTH TAKES MORE GUTS THAN YOU’VE GOT, I BET.

    Do you have any idea how difficult it is to systematically slay everything you value in order to determine truth and necessity in fact, rather than good, and useful out of habit?

    It takes far more ‘guts’ and ‘courage’ than every other morally pretentious, self congratulatory, method of trying to justify whatever nonsense the accidents of nature have managed to stick in your skull.

    In other words, we can have physical courage, emotional courage, and intellectual courage. But of them, demonstrably, without exception, intellectual courage is the most rare.

    You try looking in the mirror. Try it. Do you have the guts and courage to do it?

    I doubt it. How’s that. How many ‘men’ can I find that have physical, emotional, and intellectual courage?

    Those men are in the military.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 07:32:00 UTC