Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • YES, YOU CAN STATE A FALSE QUESTION. A question itself can be based upon false p

    YES, YOU CAN STATE A FALSE QUESTION.

    A question itself can be based upon false premises. So yes, a question can posit a falsehood, just as a statement can posit a falsehood.

    In fact, asking false questions is a conveniently deceptive means of stating falsehoods under the pretext of innocence. (The media does this all the time now – positing opinions, and statements, and arguments as questions as a means of escaping accountabiilty for their words: propagandizing).

    Whenever someone asks a question, first restate it as an assertion (statement), then simply test whether it is true or false. This will identify people who are engaged in deceptions.

    —“How do we prove everything is all just in our minds, or isn’t?”—

    This question is based upon a falsehood: the conflation of logical proof of internal consistency, with the falsification of alternatives leaving a theory that survives as a truth candidate.

    SPECTRUM:

    1) Associable: it is possible by free association to identify a pattern of similarity between two ideas.

    2) Reasonable: One constructs a route, or way, (wayfinding) within that system we call ‘reasonable’ to determine if an idea is reasonably conceivable without succumbing to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, and framing, or overloading, platonism, supernaturalism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, or outright deceit.

    3) Rational: non contradictory. One tests a statement for non-contradiction.

    4) Proof: Logical Proof: One constructs a proof of internal consistency within an axiomatic system.

    5) Fact: Observable Fact: One constructs a theory of observation, in an attempt to posit a fact.

    6) Theory: Theoretical Truth: One constructs a theory of causality by external correspondence, and attempts to testify (promise, or speak) truthfully when describing it, by providing due diligence against its possible falsehoods.

    7) Law; A theoretical truth that has survived testing in the market for ideas within which the proposition is defined.

    9) Truth: ultimately most parsimonious description humanly possible given the limits specified in the conditions. (We do not know the first principles of the universe so we cannot yet state truths with any degree of reliability)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 12:37:00 UTC

  • THE HIERARCHY OF LIES – White Lie – gift a comfort – Grey Lie – obscure a guilt

    THE HIERARCHY OF LIES

    – White Lie – gift a comfort

    – Grey Lie – obscure a guilt

    – Black Lie – obtain a benefit

    – Evil Lie – cause a harm

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 12:24:00 UTC

  • physics -> law-> philosophy,-> ideology, -> theology, -> fantasy -> insanity

    physics -> law-> philosophy,-> ideology, -> theology, -> fantasy -> insanity

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 11:01:00 UTC

  • “Hello Curt. Do you know the book Meta-Philosophy : Philosophy from a philosophi

    —“Hello Curt. Do you know the book Meta-Philosophy : Philosophy from a philosophical perspective?”— Nate

    I tend to use scientific language to make similar statements. For example, I would say that philosophy consists in the use of reason to provide us with a means decidability.

    But that the means of decidability requires a premise, and that premise is ‘an outcome’ or outputs. So given any set of inputs how can we produce a given set of outputs? And whereas in the physical world we are limited by the resources, methods of transformation, and time available. But our methods of transformation are either true or false. In the world of preferences, we are instead most limited in our ability to convince others to prefer what we choose to prefer. And unfortunately, nearly unlimited in the methods by which we can use deception to obtain their agreement upon such a preference.

    Yet, if we use reason to provide us decidability in truthful testimony proper, we can provide decidability across domains, whether they be matters of the physical, personal, and social. Or whether they be matters of limits, preferences or truths.

    I can’t say enough that I don’t take philosophy seriously, and that I don’t read it at all. I actually have come to the conclusion that philosophy as practiced is as harmful as theology.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 10:53:00 UTC

  • GOODS ARE A PREFERENCE. BADS ARE A FACT

    GOODS ARE A PREFERENCE. BADS ARE A FACT.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 15:11:00 UTC

  • Saying things early means saying things poorly. So, wait and say them well

    Saying things early means saying things poorly. So, wait and say them well.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 09:44:00 UTC

  • Reasoning via negativa. You know a rather large number of my positions are drawn

    Reasoning via negativa.

    You know a rather large number of my positions are drawn from the observations of the kinds of errors humans make, rather than some particular insight about the subject matter.

    you can, if you have the time, master pretty much every field on this earth in one lifetime. You cannot master it’s protocols, processes, and habits, but you can at least grasp the methodology each discipline employs – and they’re all relatively similar. The fact that each is expressed in teh class and IQ range of the practitioners simply confuses us – we think it is all more complex than it is.

    And if you know what common ingorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading/framing/overloading, obscurantism/pseudoscience/pseudorationalism, and various forms of deceit people engage in then you can seek for examples of those things in the field, and then suggest alternatives.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 19:43:00 UTC

  • AVOIDANCE OF EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR AS COGNITIVE SOLIPSISM: INABILITY TO DISTINGUIS

    AVOIDANCE OF EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR AS COGNITIVE SOLIPSISM: INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH EXPERIENCE FROM EXISTENCE.

    The deceit is in failing to use EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR, the same way we use gender-grammar, or temporal grammar, or locational grammar.

    Not sure why it’s so hard for people to grasp this concept.

    Not quite sure why people want to rely on the pretense of ‘god mode’ to make their statements.

    or rather, I think it is a form of cognitive solipsism: inability to separate the self from existence.

    Actually, that’s what I”m going to call it: cognitive solipsism.

    Just as so many women cannot distinquish between experience and consequence, some people cannot distinquish between experience and existence.

    cognitive solipsism.

    Not sure if it’s a developmental disorder, or a failure of maturity, or an uneven evolutionary distribution of intellectual capacity… hmmm…..

    (edit: added)

    Existential Grammar is only important once an individual makes claims to truth because of a premise or conclusion. Now, I’might argue that it’s necessary to ensure you’re not making a mistake, but then, meaning for the purpose of ideation and testimony for the purpose of warrantying due diligence prior to making a truth claim are different things. So I would hope that people would grasp that almost all philosophical arguments I run across are SOPHOMORIC because of nothing more than trickery accomplished by conflation by using the verb to-be to make existential and deducible claims, rather than simply using existential grammar and making the fraudulent claim to existential ‘authority’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 13:45:00 UTC

  • We must act. But our actions are LIMITED. It’s informationally less expensive to

    We must act. But our actions are LIMITED. It’s informationally less expensive to remember the minority of what works than the majority of what doesn’t. Just as it’s informaitonally less expensive to remember bits and pieces of relations than to store a full record of stimuli. Our brains had to develop with the rate of electro chemical processing possible in wet systems. I mean we take about 90-100 watts to operate, and that’s pretty cheap really given how expensive brains are.

    limits exist. The fact that we categorize ‘that which is not limited but actionable” is just a discounted means of storing the information we need to act with.

    So limits to actions exist. The world exists as limits to actions. We categorize these limits to action as positives (connections) because positive connections are actionable, and we associate emotions with them so that we are excited to pursue what is actionable and beneficial.

    This is a very simple system in practice. We just use billions of very cheap neurons to do it.

    so when one say x doesn’t exist (without saying how it exists) that’s false. limits exist. if the limits exist the inverse exists. a unicorn exists the way jesus exists: as a memory of a common narrative that can be verified by reciprocal agreement on the symbol we communicate when we use the term.

    Unicorns exist like words exist, like stories exist, like jesus and aristotole exist. Except that the limits we place on unicorns are different from the limits we place on aristotle and jesus.

    I can believe that jesus and aristotle existed, and that aristotle composed the ethics, and jesus gave the sermon on the mount.

    but I cannot believe that unicorns exist given my current understanding of the meaning of the term.

    nature exists. man can bring objects into existence. men can bring ideas for objects into existence. men can bring ideas in to existence by recreating them each time he desires to. The question is merley a verbalism. Do we bring a unicorn into existence as the imaginry experience? Or do we bring about an imaginary experience by the reconstruction of the symbol we call ‘unicorn’?

    The answer is that the experience exists, not the unicorn.

    The word unicorn exists. The imaginary memory exist. The experience of activating that memory exists. Does the unicorn exist?

    IT exists the same way that the square root of two exists: as a verbal convenience. Neitehr the squre of two or the unicorn exists.

    The difference is we might some day be able to technologically bring a unicorn into existence (actually, we can already make the horns exist by planting horn buds). But as yet, they do not exist in that THEY CANNOT PERSIST WITHOUT MAN’S IMAGINATION TO EXPERIENCE THEM

    Conflation of existence (persistence) with existence (memory) is either error or deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 11:22:00 UTC

  • ANGLOS TRIED TO CREATE THE LAW OF INFORMATION?

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/02/02/truth-natural-law-physical-law/HAVE ANGLOS TRIED TO CREATE THE LAW OF INFORMATION?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:46:00 UTC