Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • The Difference Between Personal-Preferential and Political-Decidable Philosophies

    We can make use of whatever free associations our unobservable minds give us. That says nothing about the truth of anything. it says only about the utility of randomly generated meaningful ideas. So personal philosophy(religion) can be constructed of such nonsense. Because people need to act in a way that they can feel confident in acting or they would be unable to act. But philosophy as a science: in which we seek decidability between different ideas, and to limit the damage of others ideas is something quite different.

    This is what separates personal ‘philosophy’ which is not philosophy per se, but philosophy by analogy…. and political philosophy by which we create ethics, morals, norms, laws, institutions, commons, and war. This is the difference between what you call philosophy and has nothing to do with truth (decidability) and the science of decidability that is provided by attempts at using truth to decide between one thing and another – especially in matters of conflict. So as I say: it doesn’t matter how you come up with ideas. Just don’t call it true, don’t call it philosophy, and don’t call it science. It is what it is: justification for working with personal intuition sot hat you need not depend on others for guidance.

  • Converting From Accusations of Falsehood To Accusations of Fraud.

    You see, I only have to testify to what I can know, and I only CAN testify to what I can know. So if I can’t know something I can’t testify to it. I can only say “I don’t know’. And in the tradeoff between “i don’t know ‘but’, and ‘I just don’t know so I can’t say’, we only need to look for perverse incentives.

    You might not realize it but I’m calling people who do what leftists do (and religious people as well) mere liars. Sophisticated lying. Lying to the self as well as others. But in the end, mere liars. We lie for many reasons. We lie to ourselves. We need the mystical part of religion to lie to ourselves. Becuase the curse of reason is that we know things we wish not to. And apparently the price of reason is that we must invent un-reason in order to compensate for the horror of reason. Yet some of us, have the courage to look fate in the face and de-conflate the moral and the true. We provide ourselves few psychological comforts other than the joy of life. We know that we must not harm, must not steal, must not tell black lies. But we do not know what is right or true. We know only what is wrong and what is error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception. The rest of knowledge and action and experience is up to us to choose from. But why do some of us have this courage and others not? It’s because for some of us, almost all our intuitions and ideas fail, so we need recipes to follow in order to succeed, simply by not failing. It is because, for some of us, we need assistance deciding between our ideas so that we choose the ones least likely to fail. It is because, for some of us, we must decide conflicts between others who have different perceptions of events – and to resolve those disputes without favoritism and fear of retaliation. In other words, because some of us are better at deciding than others.

  • Converting From Accusations of Falsehood To Accusations of Fraud.

    You see, I only have to testify to what I can know, and I only CAN testify to what I can know. So if I can’t know something I can’t testify to it. I can only say “I don’t know’. And in the tradeoff between “i don’t know ‘but’, and ‘I just don’t know so I can’t say’, we only need to look for perverse incentives.

    You might not realize it but I’m calling people who do what leftists do (and religious people as well) mere liars. Sophisticated lying. Lying to the self as well as others. But in the end, mere liars. We lie for many reasons. We lie to ourselves. We need the mystical part of religion to lie to ourselves. Becuase the curse of reason is that we know things we wish not to. And apparently the price of reason is that we must invent un-reason in order to compensate for the horror of reason. Yet some of us, have the courage to look fate in the face and de-conflate the moral and the true. We provide ourselves few psychological comforts other than the joy of life. We know that we must not harm, must not steal, must not tell black lies. But we do not know what is right or true. We know only what is wrong and what is error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception. The rest of knowledge and action and experience is up to us to choose from. But why do some of us have this courage and others not? It’s because for some of us, almost all our intuitions and ideas fail, so we need recipes to follow in order to succeed, simply by not failing. It is because, for some of us, we need assistance deciding between our ideas so that we choose the ones least likely to fail. It is because, for some of us, we must decide conflicts between others who have different perceptions of events – and to resolve those disputes without favoritism and fear of retaliation. In other words, because some of us are better at deciding than others.

  • You see, I only have to testify to what I can know, and I only CAN testify to wh

    You see, I only have to testify to what I can know, and I only CAN testify to what I can know.

    So if I can’t know something I can’t testify to it. I can only say “I don’t know’.

    And in the tradeoff between “i don’t know ‘but’, and ‘I just don’t know so I can’t say’, we only need to look for perverse incentives.

    You might not realize it but I’m calling people who do what you do (and religious people as well) mere liars. Sophisticated lying. Lying to the self as well as others. But in the end, mere liars.

    We lie for many reasons. We lie to ourselves. We need the mystical part of religion to lie to ourselves. Becuase the curse of reason is that we know things we wish not to.

    And apparently the price of reason is that we must invent un-reason in order to compensate for the horror of reason.

    Yet some of us, have the courage to look fate in the face and de-conflate the moral and the true. We provide ourselves few psychological comforts other than the joy of life. We know that we must not harm, must not steal, must not tell black lies.

    But we do not know what is right or true. We know only what is wrong and what is error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception.

    The rest of knowledge and action and experience is up to us to choose from.

    But why do some of us have this courage and others not?

    It’s because for some of us, almost all our intuitions and ideas fail, so we need recipes to follow in order to succeed, simply by not failing.

    It is because for some of us, we need assistance deciding between our ideas so that we choose the ones least likely to fail.

    It is because for some of us, we must decide conflicts between others who have different perceptions of events – and to resolve those disputes without favoritism and fear of retaliation.

    In other words, becuase some of us are better at deciding than others.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-21 06:21:00 UTC

  • We can make use of whatever free associations our unobservable minds give us. Th

    We can make use of whatever free associations our unobservable minds give us. That says nothing about the truth of anything. it says only about the utility of randomly generated meaningful ideas.

    So personal philosophy(religion) can be constructed of such nonsense. Because people need to act in a way that they can feel confident in acting or they would be unable to act.

    But philosophy as a science: in which we seek decidability between different ideas, and to limit the damage of others ideas is something quite different.

    This is what separates personal ‘philosophy’ which is not philosophy per se, but philosophy by analogy…. and political philosophy by which we create ethics, morals, norms, laws, institutions, commons, and war.

    This is the difference between what you call philosophy and has nothing to do with truth (decidability) and the science of decidability that is provided by attempts at using truth to decide between one thing and another – especially in matters of conflict.

    So as I say: it doesn’t matter how you come up with ideas. Just don’t call it true, don’t call it philosophy, and don’t call it science.

    It is what it is: justification for working with personal intuition sot hat you need not depend on others for guidance.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-21 06:04:00 UTC

  • The Danger of Philosophy

    THE DANGER OF PHILOSOPHY I read “Infinity” by Brian Clegg back in the early 00’s, and was struck by his observation that many of those who study it developed psychological problems. Someone said to me last winter, that reading my work had turned humans into zoo animals for mere observation, and decreasing empathy with their experiences.

    And it’s true that propertarianism reduces sociology and psychology and pretty much all human action into an analysis of acquisition and defense of property, and the various signals that we display to negotiate success at both. I have always thought of most people as terribly dim creatures (i usually call them zombies) that I must ensure do not hurt me out of ignorance. As a child I though peers mere animals. Most adults dangerous idiots to be managed. In my teens, I thought everyone was just evil. Then in my twenties, to my horror, I understood that they were just incompetent, and I tried to become a teacher. In my forties I tried to be paternalistic, realizing that you cannot teach zombies many tricks. And in the past decade, it has become clear to me that I have lost a lot of empathy with people because I am now operating by cognitive rules that are as alien to the secularist, as superstition is the scientist, – and that my work has reduced my subconscious evaluation of most people to gene machines that I must just negotiate with. I am an alien now in this world. I think this has dramatically influenced my moral intuitions. Meanwhile, I still have human impulses for human contact and experience. I try to keep people at an emotional and intellectual distance. And this leads me to an interesting conclusion: have I, for all intents and purposes, between tragic stresses the 00’s, and my reductionism of man, become victim to the same consequences as the authors of infinity? I think this is not the right analysis. It’s rather this in both the case of infinity and propertarianism: have I managed to transcend? Have I gone mad in some poetic sense? Or is there really any difference between transcendence and madness other than the desire you feel to interact with others – such that you transcend if you do not care, and you go mad if you do?

  • The Danger of Philosophy

    THE DANGER OF PHILOSOPHY I read “Infinity” by Brian Clegg back in the early 00’s, and was struck by his observation that many of those who study it developed psychological problems. Someone said to me last winter, that reading my work had turned humans into zoo animals for mere observation, and decreasing empathy with their experiences.

    And it’s true that propertarianism reduces sociology and psychology and pretty much all human action into an analysis of acquisition and defense of property, and the various signals that we display to negotiate success at both. I have always thought of most people as terribly dim creatures (i usually call them zombies) that I must ensure do not hurt me out of ignorance. As a child I though peers mere animals. Most adults dangerous idiots to be managed. In my teens, I thought everyone was just evil. Then in my twenties, to my horror, I understood that they were just incompetent, and I tried to become a teacher. In my forties I tried to be paternalistic, realizing that you cannot teach zombies many tricks. And in the past decade, it has become clear to me that I have lost a lot of empathy with people because I am now operating by cognitive rules that are as alien to the secularist, as superstition is the scientist, – and that my work has reduced my subconscious evaluation of most people to gene machines that I must just negotiate with. I am an alien now in this world. I think this has dramatically influenced my moral intuitions. Meanwhile, I still have human impulses for human contact and experience. I try to keep people at an emotional and intellectual distance. And this leads me to an interesting conclusion: have I, for all intents and purposes, between tragic stresses the 00’s, and my reductionism of man, become victim to the same consequences as the authors of infinity? I think this is not the right analysis. It’s rather this in both the case of infinity and propertarianism: have I managed to transcend? Have I gone mad in some poetic sense? Or is there really any difference between transcendence and madness other than the desire you feel to interact with others – such that you transcend if you do not care, and you go mad if you do?

  • I don’t deal with philosophies (excuses). I deal with opportunities, information

    I don’t deal with philosophies (excuses). I deal with opportunities, information, and incentives (causes). 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-20 16:33:00 UTC

  • THE DANGER OF PHILOSOPHY I read “Infinity” by Brian Clegg back in the early 00’s

    THE DANGER OF PHILOSOPHY

    I read “Infinity” by Brian Clegg back in the early 00’s, and was struck by his observation that many of those who study it developed psychological problems.

    Someone said to me last winter, that reading my work had turned humans into zoo animals for mere observation, and decreasing empathy with their experiences.

    And it’s true that propertarianism reduces sociology and psychology and pretty much all human action into an analysis of acquisition and defense of property, and the various signals that we display to negotiate success at both.

    I have always thought of most people as terribly dim creatures (i usually call them zombies) that I must ensure do not hurt me out of ignorance. As a child I though peers mere animals. Most adults dangerous idiots to be managed. In my teens, I thought everyone was just evil. Then in my twenties, to my horror, I understood that they were just incompetent, and I tried to become a teacher. In my forties I tried to be paternalistic, realizing that you cannot teach zombies many tricks. And in the past decade, it has become clear to me that I have lost a lot of empathy with people because I am now operating by cognitive rules that are as alien to the secularist, as superstition is the scientist, – and that my work has reduced my subconscious evaluation of most people to gene machines that I must just negotiate with. I am an alien now in this world.

    I think this has dramatically influenced my moral intuitions.

    Meanwhile, I still have human impulses for human contact and experience. I try to keep people at an emotional and intellectual distance.

    And this leads me to an interesting conclusion: have I, for all intents and purposes, between tragic stresses the 00’s, and my reductionism of man, become victim to the same consequences as the authors of infinity?

    I think this is not the right analysis. It’s rather this in both the case of infinity and propertarianism: have I managed to transcend? Have I gone mad in some poetic sense? Or is there really any difference between transcendence and madness other than the desire you feel to interact with others – such that you transcend if you do not care, and you go mad if you do?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-20 10:17:00 UTC

  • Let me explain how to propose a criticism: explain how something can’t be true b

    Let me explain how to propose a criticism: explain how something can’t be true because the incentives don’t exist for the individual.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-10 21:46:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/741386076921704448