Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • You can argue we need binding narrative. You can argue it needs legal, rational-

    You can argue we need binding narrative. You can argue it needs legal, rational-moral,and occult-emotional contents, because many people do need the sedating effect of the illusion of control provided by a common values and strategy. But not pilpul,critique,false promise,hazard.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 18:42:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180191602784002054

    Reply addressees: @EvolaJesus @PoseidonAwoke @JohnMarkSays @Algernon_Sydney @nl7719 @StefanMolyneux @philosophicart @MrsMMissy @WorMartiN @alaindwight @ThruTheHayes @MartianHoplite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180190983100796928

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @EvolaJesus @PoseidonAwoke @JohnMarkSays @Algernon_Sydney @nl7719 @StefanMolyneux @philosophicart @MrsMMissy @WorMartiN @alaindwight @ThruTheHayes @MartianHoplite This Hole we reside in exists because the inventors of judaism, christianity, and islam, once confronted by Darwin and Eugenics, revised from supernatural sophism to pseudoscientific sophism and created marxism, feminism, postmodernism and denialism. It’s just Christianity V2.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180190983100796928

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @EvolaJesus @PoseidonAwoke @JohnMarkSays @Algernon_Sydney @nl7719 @StefanMolyneux @philosophicart @MrsMMissy @WorMartiN @alaindwight @ThruTheHayes @MartianHoplite This Hole we reside in exists because the inventors of judaism, christianity, and islam, once confronted by Darwin and Eugenics, revised from supernatural sophism to pseudoscientific sophism and created marxism, feminism, postmodernism and denialism. It’s just Christianity V2.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180190983100796928

  • Evolution vs Intelligent Design (Core)

    EVOLUTION VS INTELLIGENT DESIGN (core)

    —“Are you saying you support Darwanism over Christianity or intelligent design?”—Mark E. Haney

    1 – I cannot falsify evolution and every single evidence from the fundamental structure of the universe to the imagination of man is a product of a very small number of possibilities in very great permutation, just as limited numbers of sounds, characters, and numbers can be arranged in infinitely complex permutations. 2 – The five rules of christianity are, logically, rationally(incentives), scientifically(empirically) the optimum prisoner’s dilemma (trust building) strategy, and I cannot falsify either or their relation. There is a reason christians are wealthier than competing cults. 3 – Information can only be stored in some memory or other, information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume less calories and volume that the original matter and its changes in state over time. I cannot falsify that statement – it’s a physical and logical impossibility. As to what I ‘Support’: I support truthful speech. Truthful speech can only consist of what I can testify to. I can only testify to that which is: – categorically consistent – Logically consistent – empirically(observably) consistent – operationally consistent – rationally consistent – reciprocally consistent where – parsimonious – scope consistent – and fully accounted – within stated limits and where – due diligence has been demonstrated, and where – one’s statements are warrantied by restitution if one errs. I cannot testify to anything other than. 1. Realism, 2. Naturalism, 3. Operationalism Nor can anyone else.

  • Evolution vs Intelligent Design (Core)

    EVOLUTION VS INTELLIGENT DESIGN (core)

    —“Are you saying you support Darwanism over Christianity or intelligent design?”—Mark E. Haney

    1 – I cannot falsify evolution and every single evidence from the fundamental structure of the universe to the imagination of man is a product of a very small number of possibilities in very great permutation, just as limited numbers of sounds, characters, and numbers can be arranged in infinitely complex permutations. 2 – The five rules of christianity are, logically, rationally(incentives), scientifically(empirically) the optimum prisoner’s dilemma (trust building) strategy, and I cannot falsify either or their relation. There is a reason christians are wealthier than competing cults. 3 – Information can only be stored in some memory or other, information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume less calories and volume that the original matter and its changes in state over time. I cannot falsify that statement – it’s a physical and logical impossibility. As to what I ‘Support’: I support truthful speech. Truthful speech can only consist of what I can testify to. I can only testify to that which is: – categorically consistent – Logically consistent – empirically(observably) consistent – operationally consistent – rationally consistent – reciprocally consistent where – parsimonious – scope consistent – and fully accounted – within stated limits and where – due diligence has been demonstrated, and where – one’s statements are warrantied by restitution if one errs. I cannot testify to anything other than. 1. Realism, 2. Naturalism, 3. Operationalism Nor can anyone else.

  • Immateriality of Gods.

    IMMATERIALITY OF GODS. The Four Reasons Are 1. God’ssilence, 2. God’sinaction, 3. the lack of evidence, and 4. the universe looks exactly like a godless universe would, and not at all like a Christian universe would, even down to its very structure. Of course this is true if you think gods are material beings. If instead you think gods are software distributed in the minds of all of their worshippers, producing synchronicities because of the software, then that’s quite different. You see, I talk to my gods all the time, but I don’t have to imagine them as supernatural because I understand that they exist as information and information hosted in a vast distributed computing network called ‘worshippers’ who pay debts to these gods (thanks) in exchange for wisdom and the consequences of wisdom obtained from their counsel. Gods exist like numbers exist. They do not exist in supernatural form. THey’re just information. And that is enough.

  • Immateriality of Gods.

    IMMATERIALITY OF GODS. The Four Reasons Are 1. God’ssilence, 2. God’sinaction, 3. the lack of evidence, and 4. the universe looks exactly like a godless universe would, and not at all like a Christian universe would, even down to its very structure. Of course this is true if you think gods are material beings. If instead you think gods are software distributed in the minds of all of their worshippers, producing synchronicities because of the software, then that’s quite different. You see, I talk to my gods all the time, but I don’t have to imagine them as supernatural because I understand that they exist as information and information hosted in a vast distributed computing network called ‘worshippers’ who pay debts to these gods (thanks) in exchange for wisdom and the consequences of wisdom obtained from their counsel. Gods exist like numbers exist. They do not exist in supernatural form. THey’re just information. And that is enough.

  • Rate of Mutation Tells Us Little Other than Time.

    SORRY ALL BUT, NO. RATE OF MUTATION TELLS US LITTLE OTHER THAN TIME. (a) mutation rate != yardage (or any other linear measure) (b) some mutations (cortical scale) are profoundly differentiating – just one gene. (20% of neurons in the cortex are regulatory That number increases by region. The same is true for genes. It certainly appears that the vast majority are either dead (not expressed) or regulatory. We don’t know what percent are expressed. So all mutation rate tells us is time difference it does not tell us difference in genetic expression. (c) some are profoundly consequential (delay in maturity : neoteny – just hormonal development is largely what varies between human races) (d) Genes do not produce linear effects (machine parts) but are causally dense (program code) with anything from zero consequence (noise, or regulatory), some of tiny consequence (rates of expression), and some profound. (e) One Single Additional Protein (molecular machine) may cause billions of consequences. So; (f) Of our evolutionary history, regardless of the RATE of migration, it could be only .001% of those mutations that cause 99.999% of competitive evolutionary variations. (g) we make a big deal out of 3% difference from chimpanzees but we have no idea the scale of difference provided by each of those variations. intelligence appears to be affected by hundreds if not thousands (a concert problem). Neoteny appears not to be (a small number of hormonal channels). Yet together the effect of these two sets is profound with just small changes. (h) As far as I know almost all evolutionary change is driven by: – demand for success in the local environment (ie: black resistance to malaria). – failure in the local environment (loss of height in southeast islands, loss of fire making, tool making, by austronesians.) – utility (white consumption of milk adding 40% more calories to the diet) – social animal sortition (variations in demand for competitive traits) – age of the carriers (rate of mutation or degradation) – errors in replication (genes – which happen all the time – cancer etc ) – conflicts in integration (male and female genes) – random mutations. – combinations of all of the above. On statistics: There isn’t much evidence that we are capable of using statistics on any causally dense phenomenon with any greater precision than a single regression. Period. YOU CAN’T AVERAGE AN AVERAGE, and STATISTICS MUST BE OPERATIONALLY EXPLICABLE OR THEY’RE MEANINGLESS. (correlation is not causation, and operations produce correlations) You have to explain both to make a truth claim.

  • Rate of Mutation Tells Us Little Other than Time.

    SORRY ALL BUT, NO. RATE OF MUTATION TELLS US LITTLE OTHER THAN TIME. (a) mutation rate != yardage (or any other linear measure) (b) some mutations (cortical scale) are profoundly differentiating – just one gene. (20% of neurons in the cortex are regulatory That number increases by region. The same is true for genes. It certainly appears that the vast majority are either dead (not expressed) or regulatory. We don’t know what percent are expressed. So all mutation rate tells us is time difference it does not tell us difference in genetic expression. (c) some are profoundly consequential (delay in maturity : neoteny – just hormonal development is largely what varies between human races) (d) Genes do not produce linear effects (machine parts) but are causally dense (program code) with anything from zero consequence (noise, or regulatory), some of tiny consequence (rates of expression), and some profound. (e) One Single Additional Protein (molecular machine) may cause billions of consequences. So; (f) Of our evolutionary history, regardless of the RATE of migration, it could be only .001% of those mutations that cause 99.999% of competitive evolutionary variations. (g) we make a big deal out of 3% difference from chimpanzees but we have no idea the scale of difference provided by each of those variations. intelligence appears to be affected by hundreds if not thousands (a concert problem). Neoteny appears not to be (a small number of hormonal channels). Yet together the effect of these two sets is profound with just small changes. (h) As far as I know almost all evolutionary change is driven by: – demand for success in the local environment (ie: black resistance to malaria). – failure in the local environment (loss of height in southeast islands, loss of fire making, tool making, by austronesians.) – utility (white consumption of milk adding 40% more calories to the diet) – social animal sortition (variations in demand for competitive traits) – age of the carriers (rate of mutation or degradation) – errors in replication (genes – which happen all the time – cancer etc ) – conflicts in integration (male and female genes) – random mutations. – combinations of all of the above. On statistics: There isn’t much evidence that we are capable of using statistics on any causally dense phenomenon with any greater precision than a single regression. Period. YOU CAN’T AVERAGE AN AVERAGE, and STATISTICS MUST BE OPERATIONALLY EXPLICABLE OR THEY’RE MEANINGLESS. (correlation is not causation, and operations produce correlations) You have to explain both to make a truth claim.

  • No. Don’t Conflate Arousal and Consciousness

    Gak. No. Confusing Arousal with Consciousness is like confusing the light switch with the light. Just ’cause we can turn off the switch doesn’t tell us how the light is created. We can interfere with any number of parts (Colostrum) and shut down experience. That doesn’t tell us anything. The question is, how does that mushy wetware synthesize past memory present experience, and future prediction, from millions of nerves (measurements) into our rather amazing conflated experiences of past, present and future? (cortical hierarchy, parahippocampal, perirhinal, entorhinal cortices and subiculum.) How do we shift between narrow focus, near perception, environmental perception, self perception, and deep introspection and imagination? (thalamus) Why is it we can react so quickly that we can hit a curve ball with a bat? (basal ganglia, cerebellum, and cortical prediction) How do we Assemble memories and experience them? (Hippocampus) What is that feeling of me? (mostly, hippocampus) Why can’t we pin it down. “Cause it’s a verb not a noun”. The continuous change in state in a hierarchy of ever smaller cycles of time….

  • It’s Empirical: Morality = Reciprocity

    MORALITY = RECIPROCITY You don’t understand. it’s empirical. scientific. It doesn’t matter what you i or anyone else opines. [Y]ou are welcome to falsify: (a) goods and bads refer to caloric income or loss, existential or projected (b) morality refers to reciprocity. (c) it’s a necessity of the physical universe. (d) the human biological reward system reacts like all others to gains(reduction of costs) and losses (costs). (e) Complete Reciprocity requires: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. However we maintain fairly accurate assessments of one another’s cost benefit to us. (f) philosophical sophistry leads to undecidability on this subject is due largely to attempts to produce a via-positiva definition of morality – which is only possible for norms – instead of a via negativa definition: we can only know what is universally immoral (negative), what is moral(positive) is whatever is not immoral (negative). This is true for all knowledge, and why science defeated philosophy even in ethics and morality: because we can only know what is false, and trivially true, but anything that is not false and substantive is open to continuous revision. (g) given the cost of calculation (reason), and given the cost of collecting information (evidence), the human mind wants to reduce costs by reliance on imitation and intuition (repetition of imitation). And therefore we want via-positiva means of determining good choices. So the market demand for via positiva morality exists, but the supply of imitative moral rules is produced by via negativa: what is not immoral. (h) it is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral(reciprocal). We conflate. It’s natural. But a question is only moral if it relates to others. It is only preferential if you prefer it, it is only good if others prefer it. For a moral condition to exist requires influence upon others by externality. All those statements are falsifiable, You will not be able to falsify them. FWIW I’m probably the best person working today on this subject so you might want to try to learn something by questioning your premises.

  • It’s Empirical: Morality = Reciprocity

    MORALITY = RECIPROCITY You don’t understand. it’s empirical. scientific. It doesn’t matter what you i or anyone else opines. [Y]ou are welcome to falsify: (a) goods and bads refer to caloric income or loss, existential or projected (b) morality refers to reciprocity. (c) it’s a necessity of the physical universe. (d) the human biological reward system reacts like all others to gains(reduction of costs) and losses (costs). (e) Complete Reciprocity requires: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. However we maintain fairly accurate assessments of one another’s cost benefit to us. (f) philosophical sophistry leads to undecidability on this subject is due largely to attempts to produce a via-positiva definition of morality – which is only possible for norms – instead of a via negativa definition: we can only know what is universally immoral (negative), what is moral(positive) is whatever is not immoral (negative). This is true for all knowledge, and why science defeated philosophy even in ethics and morality: because we can only know what is false, and trivially true, but anything that is not false and substantive is open to continuous revision. (g) given the cost of calculation (reason), and given the cost of collecting information (evidence), the human mind wants to reduce costs by reliance on imitation and intuition (repetition of imitation). And therefore we want via-positiva means of determining good choices. So the market demand for via positiva morality exists, but the supply of imitative moral rules is produced by via negativa: what is not immoral. (h) it is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral(reciprocal). We conflate. It’s natural. But a question is only moral if it relates to others. It is only preferential if you prefer it, it is only good if others prefer it. For a moral condition to exist requires influence upon others by externality. All those statements are falsifiable, You will not be able to falsify them. FWIW I’m probably the best person working today on this subject so you might want to try to learn something by questioning your premises.