RT @Dek01907133: @Logos_Elect @curtdoolittle The incapacity to communicate reciprocally and the inability to express oneself without having…
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 16:56:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671200279629377536
The “Is vs Must-Not” problem is solved.
There is no solution to the ought problem other than whatever reciprocity can produce at the time and place. https://twitter.com/TheAutistocrat/status/1670964953220538368
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 01:23:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670965600045223938
https://twitter.com/TheAutistocrat/status/1670964953220538368
The “Is vs Must-Not” problem is solved.
There is no solution to the ought problem other than whatever reciprocity can produce at the time and place.
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 01:23:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670965599990607872
The “Is-Must-Not” problem is solved.
There is no solution to the ought problem other than whatever reciprocity can produce at the time and place.
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 01:23:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670965478334791681
ANSWERING THE IS-OUGHT PROBLEM – HARD BUT SIMPLE
Q: CURT: “Considering what I interpret as your claim to some form of moral realism and you have Hume on your reading list do you have an article on your solution to the Is–ought problem?”
Good (Great) Question
Simple version:
1) Hume was partly correct in that induction doesn’t exist.
2) Popper was partly more correct with falsification and justification doesn’t exist.
3) My work relies on the completion of the falsificationary program, demonstrating that all logic is and can only be falsificationary (falsifying the alternatives), with truth candiates surviving:
|Decidability|: incomprehensible > undecidable > possibly True or Reciprocal > False or Irreciprocal
4) Therefore the is-ought problem isn’t one, but another fallacy of justificationism (a derivation of ‘mathiness’.)
5) As such, we can only falsify the untestifiable (false), and irreciprocal (criminal, unethical, immoral, seditious, treasonous) objectively, and as such, all claims of preference (individual) or good (collective) are statements of preference in a market competition for the scarce cooperation and resources to bring them about, with evolutionary consequences performing falsification of our theories of the preferential and good.
6) We achieve this method of falsification by completing epistemic testifiability and the hierarchy of first principles of the universe across all domains, resulting in universal decidability of testifiability (truthful and reciprocal) and decidability independent of opinion or context. And no you will not understand all of that any more easily than you will understand any other STEM subject because it is the unification of the fields, and most similar to a merger of mathematics, cognitive science, economics, and law. ie: it’s somewhat hard. As hard as any other STEM subject.
I hope this helps.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Reply addressees: @NorseJarl @Plinz
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 21:12:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670902303354679296
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670898891737235456
THE FORMULA FOR RECIPROCITY BETWEEN THE SEXES: RELATIONSHIPS
Men should be dominant (responsible) regardless of context and seek recovery in the affection of women’s respect and ‘care’.
Women should be dominant (responsible) only when and where they wish to and seek recovery in the dominance (responsibility) of men’s respect and ‘care’.
A relationship consists of the echange of putting the other person’s interests at peer or above your own, whenever and wherever it is possible to do so, and the exchange of that priority for mutual gain. By combining the best of each sex, by the only criteria for which we have reason to place one person above the other: care, mating, and reproduction.
You will notice that our organization focuses our attention on first principles, and responsibility is the first principle that most separates the sexes. Why? Male predator bias to control territory and resources with other men, and female prey bias to protect offspring in the sharing of caretaking with other women. It’s baked into our genes.
We are happiest when we figure out how to make the other person feel ‘safe’ (secure, loved), and we each fulfill those responsibilities we can because we can fulfill them most successfully and with the least stress.
Respect and responsibility are two terms that have gone out of tradition and fashion because the left promises self-indulgence and irresponsibility, meaning evasion of conformity to Western high investment commons, and high trust manners, ethics, and morals.
What I notice most in the sequence of generations is the decline in responsibility, respect, reciprocity, suppression of attention seeking, and self-indulgence, in favor of creating a high trust commons whose purpose is creating an environment optimized for the raising of children – instead of the indulgence of consumption by irresponsible hyperconsumptive adults.
I don’t make the rules – Nature does. Evolution did. I just explain the consequences of violating those rules and the tragic cumulative cost of doing so.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 18:52:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670867208283488280
RT @ThruTheHayes: DIVERSITY
There’s a single institute on the planet promoting diversity.
The Natural Law Institute.
Everybody else is a…
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-18 11:12:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670389096160677888
“NO, WE AREN’T SEEKING UTOPIA”
We aren’t, seeking utopia. We’re seeking another leap in the incremental suppression of lying and crime made possible by the industrial revolution and massive increases in population. That’s all.
We don’t claim anything other than the eradication of crime produces a field of opportunities so that markets for cooperation can experiment with a multitude of potential good governments, that evolutionary pressures will subject to natural selection, and we will learn EMPIRICALLY what is superior and not, instead of hypothetically what is superior and not.
Utopians propose the good. We don’t and can’t know it. Instead, empiricists eliminate the bad, and let the people, market and evolution decide. Anything not bad is good. Anything that survives and is good is the best that we humans can do.
Reply addressees: @LibertarianTrap @digitildream @realdanstilwell
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-17 14:07:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670070697324838914
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670069333181988864
We CAN only be responsible for use of private property and defense of common property. The reason for socialism and communism is to evade responsibility.
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-14 19:40:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669067329689333765
Reply addressees: @WhereAmIWrong @Paulp6363 @TheAutistocrat
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669066520670904321
Q: “Curt: What is the unit of account according to which the spectrum of demonstrated interests is commensurable? Pricing these areas of dispute doesn’t seem to be an exact science.”
Great question.
There are no utils nor prices in subjective value – just voluntary reciprocity or not. This is because time is the universal asset of scarcity, and time is of different value at different times in different circumstances to each of us. And all demonstrated interests (from concrete to abstract objects) store different amounts of relative time. This is the reason for subjective value and the variation in subjective value by time, place, individual, and his inventory.
So the only means of testing value is voluntary transfer (exchange). Because all individuals use personal weights and measures. As such it’s the ACTION(change) of exchange not the STATE of the asset or demonstrated interests that provides us with information.
All we know is that people seek to acquire, preserve, transform, trade, and consume demonstrated interests as a means of defeating entropy in time.
So we can catalog demonstrated interest by empirical observation(we have). Because people seek to acquire and defend demonstrated interests. And they seek restitution, punishment and prevention of those demonstrated interests when that interest is violated. In other words this is a purely empirical (scientific) question. (Empirical means observable and recordable).
And we can observe that all human behavior is reducible to statements of acquiring, preserving, transforming, exchanging, and consuming demonstrated interests.
So contrary to Utils and Prices, which are cardinal measures, human behavior is measured ordinally by ordinal name (term, not number), and determined by triangulation, not cardinal position or number.
And cardinal measures such as prices are the floating measure of relative value in markets (populations) of distributed interest in goods, services, information, or opportunity, whether private, semi-private, or common.
Prices only aggregate a distribution of the value of time to individuals that produces a voluntary exchange, and not a universal value or absolute measure of anything.
Reply addressees: @godotnik
Source date (UTC): 2023-06-13 20:16:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668713902325092355
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668700012442779649