Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Gods and Prayers as Unit of Measure

    God and prayer as a unit of measure. Just as we can use each other’s cooperation as a test, we can use prayer to an all knowing god to force ourselves to be honest with ourselves. If  god is similar enough across a population, we can use it as a unit of measure: a method of commensurability.

  • Defining Philosophy

    WORKING ON DEFINING PHILOSOPHY I have been working on defining philosophy (because like truth, it wasn’t defined before). And you know, there are a few ways to approach it: western philosophy (argumentative methodology) or philosophy in all cultures (multiple argumentative methodologies). And whether the philosophy is literary and imaginative (possibilities), escapist (most), a form of assistance(sinic), or problem solving (western). And what constitutes truth in each methodology – which differs dramatically from civilization to civilization. Now, I’m going to say that philosophy is to reason what apperception is to consciousness: the re-measuring of all related relations in response to the new measure provided by the new information. In other words: recursive recalculation in response to new measurements. The difference being that while cognition and apperception are continuous autonomic processes, reason and philosophy are guided processes, in which we devote (concentrate) resources (mental) to achieve desired ends. This is, I think, the correct description of the processes of reason and philosophy. Reason measures. Philosophy seeks commensurability of new ideas to old Ideas and refactors old ideas recursively as a consequence. At this point we should see the general union of neurology, computer science, and information: commensurability that makes judgment (comparison) possible. Western philosophy differs in its analytic (deconflated) versus synthetic (conflated) method of reasoning. The categories of philosophy form an expanding hierarchy: – existence (actionability) – epistemology (knowledge) – truth (testimony) – ethics and morality (cooperation in production ) – politics (cooperation in production of commons ) – group evolutionary strategy (competition against other groups) – aesthetics (means of associating emotions with principles that advance all of the above) And we make use of a hierarchy of argument types: – reason – rationalism (non-contradiction) – logic (internal consistency) – empiricism (external correspondence) – operationalism (existential possibility) – voluntarism (moral possibility) And we make use of a hierarchy of measurements – identity (category) – counting (measurement) – arithmetic (operations) – mathematics (sets) – geometry (space) – calculus (change) – post-euclidian calculus (logical rather than physical relations) And we practice different fields: – physical science(s) – cooperative science(s) – informational science(s) – aesthetic science(s). (and we conflate these fields as needed to produce goods, services, and information) And we conduct these arguments using different languages and methods appropriate to each of the classes. And each language places greater demand on the individual’s ability to reason. So my view of philosophy proper is an analytic deconflated process by which we recursively render commensurable the full range of stimuli from the most primitive to the most complex. Everything else I would tend to describe as moral literature, or literary law. I don’t see philosophy proper anywhere other than in the west and a touch of it in the east. What I see is analogies to philosophy proper, that we have no names for, but can be decomposed into the forms of conflation that they use, across fields, measurements, and argument types.

  • Defining Philosophy

    WORKING ON DEFINING PHILOSOPHY I have been working on defining philosophy (because like truth, it wasn’t defined before). And you know, there are a few ways to approach it: western philosophy (argumentative methodology) or philosophy in all cultures (multiple argumentative methodologies). And whether the philosophy is literary and imaginative (possibilities), escapist (most), a form of assistance(sinic), or problem solving (western). And what constitutes truth in each methodology – which differs dramatically from civilization to civilization. Now, I’m going to say that philosophy is to reason what apperception is to consciousness: the re-measuring of all related relations in response to the new measure provided by the new information. In other words: recursive recalculation in response to new measurements. The difference being that while cognition and apperception are continuous autonomic processes, reason and philosophy are guided processes, in which we devote (concentrate) resources (mental) to achieve desired ends. This is, I think, the correct description of the processes of reason and philosophy. Reason measures. Philosophy seeks commensurability of new ideas to old Ideas and refactors old ideas recursively as a consequence. At this point we should see the general union of neurology, computer science, and information: commensurability that makes judgment (comparison) possible. Western philosophy differs in its analytic (deconflated) versus synthetic (conflated) method of reasoning. The categories of philosophy form an expanding hierarchy: – existence (actionability) – epistemology (knowledge) – truth (testimony) – ethics and morality (cooperation in production ) – politics (cooperation in production of commons ) – group evolutionary strategy (competition against other groups) – aesthetics (means of associating emotions with principles that advance all of the above) And we make use of a hierarchy of argument types: – reason – rationalism (non-contradiction) – logic (internal consistency) – empiricism (external correspondence) – operationalism (existential possibility) – voluntarism (moral possibility) And we make use of a hierarchy of measurements – identity (category) – counting (measurement) – arithmetic (operations) – mathematics (sets) – geometry (space) – calculus (change) – post-euclidian calculus (logical rather than physical relations) And we practice different fields: – physical science(s) – cooperative science(s) – informational science(s) – aesthetic science(s). (and we conflate these fields as needed to produce goods, services, and information) And we conduct these arguments using different languages and methods appropriate to each of the classes. And each language places greater demand on the individual’s ability to reason. So my view of philosophy proper is an analytic deconflated process by which we recursively render commensurable the full range of stimuli from the most primitive to the most complex. Everything else I would tend to describe as moral literature, or literary law. I don’t see philosophy proper anywhere other than in the west and a touch of it in the east. What I see is analogies to philosophy proper, that we have no names for, but can be decomposed into the forms of conflation that they use, across fields, measurements, and argument types.

  • Teach Children Spectra, not nouns or verbs.

    THOUGHT OF THE DAY Just as we teach our children nouns, and asians teach their children verbs, what if we all taught our children spectra? In Propertarianism I have guarded against conflation and substitution and enforced causal relations by reliance upon iterating (over and over again) spectra.

    three points test a line. a spectrum tests each point. Defense against the gravity of ignorance: our desire for reduction by a process of conflation and substitution.

  • Teach Children Spectra, not nouns or verbs.

    THOUGHT OF THE DAY Just as we teach our children nouns, and asians teach their children verbs, what if we all taught our children spectra? In Propertarianism I have guarded against conflation and substitution and enforced causal relations by reliance upon iterating (over and over again) spectra.

    three points test a line. a spectrum tests each point. Defense against the gravity of ignorance: our desire for reduction by a process of conflation and substitution.

  • Math is Taught as Fiction

    YES, MATHEMATICS IS TAUGHT AS FICTION: “LET US TEACH EVERYONE A VERY INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT LESSON VIA MR JOHN BLACK.” —“Mathematical fictionalism is more tenable than mathematical platonism.”—Melvin Davila Martinez “There are no such things as abstract objects? Prove it.” — John Black The verb ‘to-be’ = ‘exists’. (is, are, was, were, be, being, been) It is the most ‘irregular’ verb in the english language. Irregular means ‘fungible’. In other words, it is the least precise verb in the english language. It allows us to ‘cheat’, and save both thinking and words, and to claim authority rather than subjectivity, by circumventing the process of constructing the existence of the referent. Example: The cat is black = i see a cat, and the cat looks like the color black to me. The first is both a verbal shortcut, a testimony of one’s honesty, and an appeal to authority by a definitive statement, which can only POSSIBLY be a subjective statement. The same applies to the use of the word ‘number’ which is an irregular NOUN – that like the most irregular VERB ‘to be’, allows us to ‘cheat’, and save thinking and words, by circumventing the process of constructing the existence of the referent. the natural numbers refer to a set of names for quantities of anything we choose to categorize. But everything else we call a ‘number’ is, like the verb ‘to-be’ a pretense, since a number, including fractional representation using numbers, refers to the name of a quantity, whereas all other referents are the result of operations: FUNCTIONS, not numbers. So let us scientifically test this statement: “There are no such things as abstract objects.” …. which translates to …. “There [exist] no such [referents] as [non-existent] [referents]” To which the answer is: “There exist constant relations between constant relations.” which is a tautology. In other words, its meaningless. Why? Because what is a measurement? A measurement is a unitary quantity of constant relations. And what is a number? the name of a constant relation of quantities. Do constant relations exist? Yes, we call this ‘determinism’ in the scientific ( not philosophical) sense: that the universe operates by a set of constant relations we call ‘laws’ that we must only discover. If the universe did not operate by constant relations thought would be impossible, since that is the function of memory: to identify constant relations, and test inconstant relations. So do constant relations exist? Yes. We name those constant relations by the use of names that we call numbers, and functions that we reduce to the symbolic equivalent of numbers. But all that ‘exists’ are constant relations. Mathematics currently consists of a large set of verbal myths and parables by which we reduce complex sequences of consistent operations upon a unitary measure of constant relations. In other words, when we say Christianity or Aristotelianism, we give a name to a complex set of undefined operations. When we speak in much of mathematical language we do the same. Why? Because the human mind uses mathematics as a symbolic store of constant relations beyond which our perceptions are able to discern, and beyond which our short term memories are capable of holding. So we speak in the language of manipulating the symbols and begin to treat those symbols as existential rather than as names for the set of constant relations and constant operations that they refer to. ANY TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT (ANY STATEMENT IN WHICH YOU CLAIM TO CONSTRUCT A TRUTH PROPOSITION) THAT CONTAINS THE VERB TO BE, MUST BE TESTED AS A POTENTIAL ACT OF FRAUD, BECAUSE EACH SUCH STATEMENT IS A FRAUD CANDIDATE, SINCE ANY TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT CAN BE STATED WITHOUT THE VERB TO BE WITH GREATER DEFENSE AGAINST CONFLATION, SUBSTITUTION, SUGGESTION, AND DECEIT. Almost all philosophical questions that we normally find irresolvable are dependent upon the use of the verb to be to create appeal to authority through the use of confusion and incommensurability by acts of polymorphism by the use of conflation, substitution, suggestion, loading (moral distraction) and deceit (counter-factual loading). In other words MATHEMATICAL FICTIONALISM truthfully and scientifically describes the ‘story’ or ‘mythology’ of mathematics. When we speak in the names of heroes, and refer to myths and legends, and use these parables as methods of decidability in the face of a kaleidic universe, we are ‘calculating’ using symbolic referents and operations. Just as when we claim that the square root of two exists, when it cannot, since we refer to a constant relation that cannot be reduced to a constant relation without a context to provide the information supplied by context: what mathematicians call ‘limits’ or ‘decidability’ or ‘the axiom of choice’. Mathematics is to Programming, what Rationalism is to Empiricism: a smaller set of properties. Mathematics functions as a language for the expression of constant relations greater than the constant relations we can express by other means. Mathematics is spoken in terms of mythology, but computer science is not. This is what separates the imaginary and mythological, from the existential, and computable. Programming tests mathematics. Because functions exist, because operations exist. Everything else refers to some complex set of constant relations we give a name to: a function: a sequence of existentially possible operations. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Math is Taught as Fiction

    YES, MATHEMATICS IS TAUGHT AS FICTION: “LET US TEACH EVERYONE A VERY INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT LESSON VIA MR JOHN BLACK.” —“Mathematical fictionalism is more tenable than mathematical platonism.”—Melvin Davila Martinez “There are no such things as abstract objects? Prove it.” — John Black The verb ‘to-be’ = ‘exists’. (is, are, was, were, be, being, been) It is the most ‘irregular’ verb in the english language. Irregular means ‘fungible’. In other words, it is the least precise verb in the english language. It allows us to ‘cheat’, and save both thinking and words, and to claim authority rather than subjectivity, by circumventing the process of constructing the existence of the referent. Example: The cat is black = i see a cat, and the cat looks like the color black to me. The first is both a verbal shortcut, a testimony of one’s honesty, and an appeal to authority by a definitive statement, which can only POSSIBLY be a subjective statement. The same applies to the use of the word ‘number’ which is an irregular NOUN – that like the most irregular VERB ‘to be’, allows us to ‘cheat’, and save thinking and words, by circumventing the process of constructing the existence of the referent. the natural numbers refer to a set of names for quantities of anything we choose to categorize. But everything else we call a ‘number’ is, like the verb ‘to-be’ a pretense, since a number, including fractional representation using numbers, refers to the name of a quantity, whereas all other referents are the result of operations: FUNCTIONS, not numbers. So let us scientifically test this statement: “There are no such things as abstract objects.” …. which translates to …. “There [exist] no such [referents] as [non-existent] [referents]” To which the answer is: “There exist constant relations between constant relations.” which is a tautology. In other words, its meaningless. Why? Because what is a measurement? A measurement is a unitary quantity of constant relations. And what is a number? the name of a constant relation of quantities. Do constant relations exist? Yes, we call this ‘determinism’ in the scientific ( not philosophical) sense: that the universe operates by a set of constant relations we call ‘laws’ that we must only discover. If the universe did not operate by constant relations thought would be impossible, since that is the function of memory: to identify constant relations, and test inconstant relations. So do constant relations exist? Yes. We name those constant relations by the use of names that we call numbers, and functions that we reduce to the symbolic equivalent of numbers. But all that ‘exists’ are constant relations. Mathematics currently consists of a large set of verbal myths and parables by which we reduce complex sequences of consistent operations upon a unitary measure of constant relations. In other words, when we say Christianity or Aristotelianism, we give a name to a complex set of undefined operations. When we speak in much of mathematical language we do the same. Why? Because the human mind uses mathematics as a symbolic store of constant relations beyond which our perceptions are able to discern, and beyond which our short term memories are capable of holding. So we speak in the language of manipulating the symbols and begin to treat those symbols as existential rather than as names for the set of constant relations and constant operations that they refer to. ANY TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT (ANY STATEMENT IN WHICH YOU CLAIM TO CONSTRUCT A TRUTH PROPOSITION) THAT CONTAINS THE VERB TO BE, MUST BE TESTED AS A POTENTIAL ACT OF FRAUD, BECAUSE EACH SUCH STATEMENT IS A FRAUD CANDIDATE, SINCE ANY TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT CAN BE STATED WITHOUT THE VERB TO BE WITH GREATER DEFENSE AGAINST CONFLATION, SUBSTITUTION, SUGGESTION, AND DECEIT. Almost all philosophical questions that we normally find irresolvable are dependent upon the use of the verb to be to create appeal to authority through the use of confusion and incommensurability by acts of polymorphism by the use of conflation, substitution, suggestion, loading (moral distraction) and deceit (counter-factual loading). In other words MATHEMATICAL FICTIONALISM truthfully and scientifically describes the ‘story’ or ‘mythology’ of mathematics. When we speak in the names of heroes, and refer to myths and legends, and use these parables as methods of decidability in the face of a kaleidic universe, we are ‘calculating’ using symbolic referents and operations. Just as when we claim that the square root of two exists, when it cannot, since we refer to a constant relation that cannot be reduced to a constant relation without a context to provide the information supplied by context: what mathematicians call ‘limits’ or ‘decidability’ or ‘the axiom of choice’. Mathematics is to Programming, what Rationalism is to Empiricism: a smaller set of properties. Mathematics functions as a language for the expression of constant relations greater than the constant relations we can express by other means. Mathematics is spoken in terms of mythology, but computer science is not. This is what separates the imaginary and mythological, from the existential, and computable. Programming tests mathematics. Because functions exist, because operations exist. Everything else refers to some complex set of constant relations we give a name to: a function: a sequence of existentially possible operations. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Definitions of Techniques of Deception

    DEFINITIONS: LOADING, FRAMING, OVERLOADING. Loading = Moral Loading (a form of biasing a suggestion, causing the person to be more heavily influenced by intuition – social effects.) Framing = a form of informational cherrypicking where one eliminates some information and overloads with other information, in order to bias the conclusions of others.

    Overloading = Cognitive Overloading ( The use of information, language, detail, to cause the failure of the individual to analytically tests the statement and resort to intuition – cognitive effects) Pseudoscience and pseudorationalism, religion, and narrative are methods of Overloading. (Marxism is at present the second best form of overloading after monotheism – both of which make false utopian promises). I sometimes separate out Environmental Overloading (Propaganda) to demonstrate overloading at scale, by industrialized means. I sometimes refer to religion as using overloading and submission to overloading as a price of ritual entry into an identity. Most deception occurs by the use of incomplete information to cause reliance on introspection (substitution). this kind of deception is open to denial, and therefore not open to retaliation. Whereas supplying false information rather than incomplete and suggested information is not open to denial, and therefore is open to retaliation.

  • Definitions of Techniques of Deception

    DEFINITIONS: LOADING, FRAMING, OVERLOADING. Loading = Moral Loading (a form of biasing a suggestion, causing the person to be more heavily influenced by intuition – social effects.) Framing = a form of informational cherrypicking where one eliminates some information and overloads with other information, in order to bias the conclusions of others.

    Overloading = Cognitive Overloading ( The use of information, language, detail, to cause the failure of the individual to analytically tests the statement and resort to intuition – cognitive effects) Pseudoscience and pseudorationalism, religion, and narrative are methods of Overloading. (Marxism is at present the second best form of overloading after monotheism – both of which make false utopian promises). I sometimes separate out Environmental Overloading (Propaganda) to demonstrate overloading at scale, by industrialized means. I sometimes refer to religion as using overloading and submission to overloading as a price of ritual entry into an identity. Most deception occurs by the use of incomplete information to cause reliance on introspection (substitution). this kind of deception is open to denial, and therefore not open to retaliation. Whereas supplying false information rather than incomplete and suggested information is not open to denial, and therefore is open to retaliation.

  • Philosophers can be rendered commensurable by their distance from truth, the met

    Philosophers can be rendered commensurable by their distance from truth, the method of their arguments, and the capital in toto changes they advocate by trade or not trading.

    1-utopians(plato),

    2-truth tellers (aristotle),

    3-truth avoiders (sun tsu),

    4-liars (abraham),

    5-lying+ignorance(muhammed)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-24 18:13:00 UTC