Form: Argument

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1546894798 Timestamp) by William Douglas Watson Since people are willing fight for religious beliefs (defend), they are considered property in toto. That means they should not be infringed upon if they are compatible with the rest of civilization. Curt has no interest in hindering our right to practice our religion, only in hindering the use of ANY METHOD to perform or advocate for theft (parasitism). He hasn’t always done a good job of making this clear (recently he has been trying to clarify) but that is not his job. His job is to write law. Our job is to make the law digestible for others. In a propertarian society we would have much greater religious freedom to actually live out our faith. Real freedom of association (positiva) would be restored because we would have freedom to disassociate (negativa). So, as an example, you could no longer be forced to bake cakes that advocated for “alternative lifestyles”. This is just a quick example of a current hot button issue but if you give it some thought I’m sure that you could find many other examples where we, as Christians, would benefit from the restoration of just this one aspect of natural law. (cd: approved)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547142603 Timestamp) —“What is it that we mean by “metaphysics”? Is it the reverse-engineering of human cognition? Is it really so useless to try to reverse-engineer the mind? I could accept something of the sort of: “doing metaphysics even of the sort of naturalistic inquiry that you profess requires the sort of social institutions or commons that would be too vulnerable to parasitism”.”— Adam Voight Short Answer: Metaphysics is looking for means of cheating. What I think we call metaphysics is the discipline of trying to create a fictional narrative that justifies our means of survival, competition, prospering, and signaling given our abilities, means, and conditions. So an ‘ontology” (paradigm) that ‘lets me get what I want’. Where my approach is ‘here is the paradigm’ now negotiate within it for what you want, don’t make an excuse that what you want is ‘good’ so that you can engage in all sorts of discounting (cheating). The rest of the ontologies (paradigms) are just networks on top of that base ontology (paradigm) of human action (perception, cognition, memory, calculation, speech, negotiation, action). Well, I mean I worked on AI, and now we have cognitive science, and we have language that expresses the content of the mind, so it’s pretty easy. I mean, I think I have a pretty good understanding of how the mind works, and I’ve come to understand it’s actually not complicated, it’s just an emergent phenomenon of enough hierarchical memory, and the devotion of so much of that memory to the continuous production of serialized speech so that we can negotiate cooperation with others, because cooperation produces such ridiculously outsized returns on calories that language and cooperation are more valuable than any other caloric expenditure. In my book I teach that the human body, intuition, and mind provide a the system of measurement we work with because it is all that we can work with because it is the only comparisons we are able to make – and that all language consists of measurements culminating in transactions. The question is only the precision of those measurements on the one hand, the correspondence of those measurements, and the ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in those measurements. I then use that system of measurement (operational language) to provide commensurability, and reframe all human experience, knowledge, and disciplines in that commensurable language. Then I document every known method of deflating language to produce increased precision and decreased opportunity for conflation. Then I document every known method of inflating language to engaging the masking of ignorance, and the generation of error, bias, and deceit. Then I account for costs. In other words the Metaphysics of Action turns out to be the only non-false model. The metaphysics of speech limited to action turns out to be the only non-false model. And the tests of costs whether at the physical or human level turns out to be the only non-false model. This turns out to be what we do in court already when prosecuting a crime. Which is why the west developed reason, empiricism, science: it all evolved out of our natural common law of sovereignty. The moment you base your cognitive hierarchy on sovereignty (the individual) then there is no conflation available by which to ignore costs. This sentence is very profound. if you base it on anything else you invite (make excuses for) the unaccountable, adn the undecidable, leaving room for authoritarian or communal calculation. This hierarchy of concepts is quite important really. It explains why so many thinkers went off the rails and why there is a proliferation of incommensurable ‘fictions’ in philosophy and theology and opinion. “How can I cheat others?” “How can I use cheating to rally large numbers of others?” “How can I use cheating and rallying large numbers to obtain power?” I see history as a few people trying to create truth and productivity, a lot of people lying and cheating, and a lot more trying to get by with the lies, cheating, and stealing that they can get away with in the current context. Because I study science and the law and economics and not philosophy ,theology, literature, or what passes for history but is largely propaganda.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547138370 Timestamp) THE ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS OVER METAPHYSICS —“Anytime you utter the word “emergent phenomenon”, you automatically need another science. In order to count as such, a science needs to satisfy what constraints?”— Help me understand this because there is no limit that I can imagine to the scale of a neural (bayesian) network, and no limit to the cognitive ability of a hierarchical and recursive network – other than inputs and outputs. The limits we have today are mechanical – we have built the wrong kind of computers. Even such, at great heat-cost, we are able to replicate those networks. So for ‘speech’ to emerge just like for the touch ui to emerge we require hardware (biological ware). So somehow (random selection, intentional manipulation) the real-world interface determines what can be ‘identified, predicted, and judged’ by that recursive, hierarchical, network. —“real”– As far as I know real = existential = persistent = observable = observable directly, by instrumentation, or by deduction from deduction using instrumentation, where that instrumentation can be either physical(external) or logical (internal). As far as I know ‘real’ in the colloquial, refers to ACTIONABLE. As far as I know the only open question is an empty verbalism: experiences are constructed from a combination of perception with memories of perceptions, limited by the grammar of conception, which is brain structure, which appears to be little more than the neurological homunculus – which the more I understand, the less ‘human’ I feel. So do experience (concepts, etc) exist, or do they have the potential be experienced, and do they persist if and only if some number of us share the potential to experience them? Once we operationalize these questions they turn out to be quite simple. Do unicorns exist? Well, No. Do does the word unicorn exist? Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) of that word. So it we have knowledge of it. That knowledge persists in some distributed and fragmentary form. But it only exists as POTENTIAL. Whereas that which we claim exists already does so. Does that idea of a unicorn exist? Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) that can be accessed by that word, and using that index (word) we can recall some combination of fragmentary images of a unicorn (mine are the scenes in Blade Runner and after that, Legend of all things). So in Does the referent exist? Well, No. Does the index of the referent exist? Well, Yes. Does knowledge of the referent exist? Well, Yes. Yet again, we see, that a series stated in operational language solves the problem of the sophism of reductive questions. Unicorns don’t exist. An index (word) appears to have little or no direct sensation of itself. An index evokes a network of fragments, that recursively reflect additional fragments, and so on until we have exhausted our memories. the cortex (brain) is a continuous prediction system using fragments , and we can apply that prediction system to the real, the linguistic, and the imagined. What we call mind, probably an consequence of either cooperation, communication or language, or the sequence in total, consists largely in the direction of that forecasting (attention) and recursion (concentration). Is knowing this the same as experience? well no. Knowing this is however, defensive: eliminating the errors, bises, and deceits, that we and others engage in, with ourselves and others. WHAT ABOUT “NEED” – HUMAN DEMAND FOR COMFORTING FALSEHOODS Demand for Falsehoods today are driven by signal pressure and alienation pressure. In the past they were driven by signal pressure, competitive pressure, alienation pressure, and suffering pressure. We cannot fix signal pressure since it is necessary for selection, but we can fix mindfulness. We can’t fix alienation pressure but we can improve mindfulness and the civic society to reduce it. We can limit competitive pressure through the civic society and political ethnocentrism. And we can dramatically (and have) eliminated suffering pressure through mindfulness and medicine. Yes, the truth is that comforting lies (sophistry pseudoscience, the occult and denial), cults and groups, and sedation by alcohol, an drugs are CHEAP and DISORGANIZED means of providing mindfulness in the face of signal, alienation, competitive, and suffering pressures. However, we can likewise take and ORGANIZED and EXPENSIVE means of serving those market demands by non false and healthy and productive means. But like all contemporary problems (a) the collection of rent-seekers that will be displaced by the efforts to produce that order will fight desperately against these reforms (improvements) just as they will the legal and financial, because rent seeking that leaves people subject to pressures but gives them false hope is the most profitable industry of all. (b) not enough of us (yet) have taken up arms to alter that circumstance. NO MORE LIES

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547132816 Timestamp) YES, METAPHYSICS HAS BEEN OVERVALUED FOR 2500 YEARS (very ,very, important concept) —“The athenian tradition did not account for costs. (1) the peerage was small and wealthy with common interests – and costs were as rude then as today” (2) discussion of costs immediately changes from ideals to reals thereby self selecting into class interests.” — CD Adam Voight asks a profound question: —“Does this mean that doing metaphysics has been overvalued for 2500 years?”— Adam Voight Yes, (which is why I piss on the subject all the time) it’s just a means of trying to find a reason not to account for costs. Which I think i’ve tried to state repeatedly, is that the universe operates on least cost principles because it has no choice. Humans do also because they have no choice. We are more complicated than the universe because we have memory, can use that memory to predict, and therefore select delayed actions or early actions an capture that difference in calories as reward. Measurement(math), Science (measurement), engineering (measurement), accounting/finance (measurement), economics(measurement), and Law (measurement) all account for costs. Philosophy and theology and the Occult do not account for costs. IMO Popper and Kuhn did not account for costs. Hayek half-succeeded and half failed, in that law is the only ‘science’ and that all else is merely some fewer number of dimensions we consider under the law. Science and philosophy and religion evolved out of law, with economics and physics the only two to account for costs, and keynesian economics an attempt like philosophy and religion to NOT account for costs. So here is the simple psychology of it: Those of us and our disciplines who account for costs. Those of us and our disciplines who avoid accounting for costs. The issue: you can rally people politically very easily by not accounting for costs. That is the secret to religion and philosophy versus science and law. Hence my work at ‘fixing’ the law such that it is a cult in and of itself, that is extremely intolerant of not accounting for costs.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547132816 Timestamp) YES, METAPHYSICS HAS BEEN OVERVALUED FOR 2500 YEARS (very ,very, important concept) —“The athenian tradition did not account for costs. (1) the peerage was small and wealthy with common interests – and costs were as rude then as today” (2) discussion of costs immediately changes from ideals to reals thereby self selecting into class interests.” — CD Adam Voight asks a profound question: —“Does this mean that doing metaphysics has been overvalued for 2500 years?”— Adam Voight Yes, (which is why I piss on the subject all the time) it’s just a means of trying to find a reason not to account for costs. Which I think i’ve tried to state repeatedly, is that the universe operates on least cost principles because it has no choice. Humans do also because they have no choice. We are more complicated than the universe because we have memory, can use that memory to predict, and therefore select delayed actions or early actions an capture that difference in calories as reward. Measurement(math), Science (measurement), engineering (measurement), accounting/finance (measurement), economics(measurement), and Law (measurement) all account for costs. Philosophy and theology and the Occult do not account for costs. IMO Popper and Kuhn did not account for costs. Hayek half-succeeded and half failed, in that law is the only ‘science’ and that all else is merely some fewer number of dimensions we consider under the law. Science and philosophy and religion evolved out of law, with economics and physics the only two to account for costs, and keynesian economics an attempt like philosophy and religion to NOT account for costs. So here is the simple psychology of it: Those of us and our disciplines who account for costs. Those of us and our disciplines who avoid accounting for costs. The issue: you can rally people politically very easily by not accounting for costs. That is the secret to religion and philosophy versus science and law. Hence my work at ‘fixing’ the law such that it is a cult in and of itself, that is extremely intolerant of not accounting for costs.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547575509 Timestamp) I don’t think you understand. The existing common law consists of that which the judiciary will decide, and the state will enforce under the presumption we are equals. The existing continental law consists of the presumption of a feudal difference between the state and the citizenry, and that the citizens are permitted that which is not prohibited or commanded. The existing and past soviet and islamic law, consists of the presumption of enslavement by the state or the priesthood’s false god, and the the limiting of one’s actions to that which is permitted. “The White Law” consists of that law of cooperation, the abridgement of which demands adjudication, and restitution, for us to refrain from extermination, enslavement, or enserfment. it is a via-negativa law. It is a law of those who are equal in sufficient agency to be granted agency by one another – with the rest of man, beast, plant, and matter to be defended against in the interests of our continued production of agency, and continued transcendence.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547573671 Timestamp) Yes, conservatives(empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives are the population’s means of detecting and purging harm – the white blood cells of the social order and polity. Progressives (consumptivists) have low sensitivity to disgust, but high demand for consumption, novelty, experience, and fear of being ‘left behind’. That does not mean that our disgust sensitivity is always right. It means that we must test whether than harm actually exists by propertarian means. Obviously in pedophilia it does. In homosexuality, other than keeping it out of the commons, I don’t see how it does.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547575509 Timestamp) I don’t think you understand. The existing common law consists of that which the judiciary will decide, and the state will enforce under the presumption we are equals. The existing continental law consists of the presumption of a feudal difference between the state and the citizenry, and that the citizens are permitted that which is not prohibited or commanded. The existing and past soviet and islamic law, consists of the presumption of enslavement by the state or the priesthood’s false god, and the the limiting of one’s actions to that which is permitted. “The White Law” consists of that law of cooperation, the abridgement of which demands adjudication, and restitution, for us to refrain from extermination, enslavement, or enserfment. it is a via-negativa law. It is a law of those who are equal in sufficient agency to be granted agency by one another – with the rest of man, beast, plant, and matter to be defended against in the interests of our continued production of agency, and continued transcendence.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547573671 Timestamp) Yes, conservatives(empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives are the population’s means of detecting and purging harm – the white blood cells of the social order and polity. Progressives (consumptivists) have low sensitivity to disgust, but high demand for consumption, novelty, experience, and fear of being ‘left behind’. That does not mean that our disgust sensitivity is always right. It means that we must test whether than harm actually exists by propertarian means. Obviously in pedophilia it does. In homosexuality, other than keeping it out of the commons, I don’t see how it does.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547748382 Timestamp) REMOVE THEM FROM THE POLITICAL COMMONS FOR THEIR SAFETY AND OURS. —“The problem with the current structure of government is that there is a buffer between choice/action and consequence. When there is no buffer between choice/action and consequence reality/nature is the best teacher, experience the best path to wisdom. Only clinically insane and deeply mentally challenged people wantonly put their hand in the fire a third time… Those are the people you need to remove from the commons for their own safety and ours.”—Anne Summers