Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Criticism of P

    Jan 22, 2020, 11:51 AM 1. Lack of Vital Components: This is the correct criticism. My plan has been consistent: A moral license, a set of demands, a plan of transition and a means of insurrection. So far you can only see through the set of demands (constitution). It does not pay to release more information. The window has to move further.

    1. Lack of Reach: We have a plan. It is not useful to release it. The window has to move further.
      The window keeps moving. Unfortunately it’s started moving faster than I can…

    3. I’ll give you a warning: your conservatism (“show me, i need to understand”) is effective in resisting change only if you are in control. And it’s been a failure in resisting when you are not in control. And we lost control when women and underclasses entered the franchise. And you (we) let them into the franchise out of christian optimism during a period of windfall profits at civilizational scale – one that will never repeat again given the seizure of low hanging scientific fruits. So, I”m going to be blunt and say ‘if you need to understand to act, then you are the reason you fail.” The left just seizes a series of opportunities for incremental advancement. Your need for ‘understanding’ and ‘certainty’ is why you (conservatives) have failed. And the hand-wringing (cowards) on the right are the majority. I have studied many things not the least of which is the history of revolutions and evolutions in governance both inside the anglo european and outside it. The last time we had a political solution available to us was 1992. We have not had that solution available to us yet. it is only under extreme duress, and the inability to deny being ‘conservative and politically lazy’ that the overton window moves to the blatantly obvious. So the problem is the man in your mirror that even asks these questions rather than running to every rally, every demonstration,m every opportunity, and yes, every fight, to defend what you depend upon but really want others to solve for you so you can continue being lazy ‘conservatives’. There is no condition under which we can gain control after this next election and that is simply it. The only solution is to eliminate the optimism of the ‘white middle’ civic nationalists by evidence that they cannot contradict: the exposure of differences in groups under duress.

    1. My strategy has been to create a discussion on a proposition that serves the interest of our people regardless of disposition at the expense of the elites. It is not a ‘conservative’ strategy so much as it is a strategy neither side can envision because of their ignorance of the law, economics, and the sciences that describe the world beyond what is emotionally available to our intuitions. So, my strategy is to make a solution available and the promise of civil war so certain that it is unnecessary. But that if necessary there is the least possible resistance. This is not something new, it is the same strategy I have expressed for over a decade. And as far as I know there is no solution for engineering the operation of a government under which we can separate (and continue to speciate) yet hold this continental territory and its unique advantage in food production from competitors.

  • Criticism of P

    Jan 22, 2020, 11:51 AM 1. Lack of Vital Components: This is the correct criticism. My plan has been consistent: A moral license, a set of demands, a plan of transition and a means of insurrection. So far you can only see through the set of demands (constitution). It does not pay to release more information. The window has to move further.

    1. Lack of Reach: We have a plan. It is not useful to release it. The window has to move further.
      The window keeps moving. Unfortunately it’s started moving faster than I can…

    3. I’ll give you a warning: your conservatism (“show me, i need to understand”) is effective in resisting change only if you are in control. And it’s been a failure in resisting when you are not in control. And we lost control when women and underclasses entered the franchise. And you (we) let them into the franchise out of christian optimism during a period of windfall profits at civilizational scale – one that will never repeat again given the seizure of low hanging scientific fruits. So, I”m going to be blunt and say ‘if you need to understand to act, then you are the reason you fail.” The left just seizes a series of opportunities for incremental advancement. Your need for ‘understanding’ and ‘certainty’ is why you (conservatives) have failed. And the hand-wringing (cowards) on the right are the majority. I have studied many things not the least of which is the history of revolutions and evolutions in governance both inside the anglo european and outside it. The last time we had a political solution available to us was 1992. We have not had that solution available to us yet. it is only under extreme duress, and the inability to deny being ‘conservative and politically lazy’ that the overton window moves to the blatantly obvious. So the problem is the man in your mirror that even asks these questions rather than running to every rally, every demonstration,m every opportunity, and yes, every fight, to defend what you depend upon but really want others to solve for you so you can continue being lazy ‘conservatives’. There is no condition under which we can gain control after this next election and that is simply it. The only solution is to eliminate the optimism of the ‘white middle’ civic nationalists by evidence that they cannot contradict: the exposure of differences in groups under duress.

    1. My strategy has been to create a discussion on a proposition that serves the interest of our people regardless of disposition at the expense of the elites. It is not a ‘conservative’ strategy so much as it is a strategy neither side can envision because of their ignorance of the law, economics, and the sciences that describe the world beyond what is emotionally available to our intuitions. So, my strategy is to make a solution available and the promise of civil war so certain that it is unnecessary. But that if necessary there is the least possible resistance. This is not something new, it is the same strategy I have expressed for over a decade. And as far as I know there is no solution for engineering the operation of a government under which we can separate (and continue to speciate) yet hold this continental territory and its unique advantage in food production from competitors.

  • A Discussion on The Scientific Method as “Bayesian”

    Jan 24, 2020, 9:01 AM

    –“Bayesian”–

    This is a good start. Now I know the paradigm your working from and its limits. We have a long way to go. But smart folk will get there. My job is to (a) get you to operationalize bayesian learning instead of using it as a ‘magic word’. And once we are there, (b) to forgo the discipline’s self congratulatory presumption of its innocence, and demarcate between science, pseudoscience, and deceit. (c) and then to articulate the means by which we warranty against pseudoscience and deceit. The rather (humorous) framing is the presumption of innocence and positive intention or positive bias of the fields. And while the grammars (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) of the physical world are relatively simple, as we move from physical to biological, to economic, to legal, to cognitive and rational the problem increases in complexity, as well as opportunity for malfeasance.

    —“Bayesian updating is done by individuals. Market competition takes place in groups of individuals. So these are disjoint processes from the off, and there is no contradiction to both of them operating to some extent, and both of them being necessary.”—

    Correct. (a)Personal learning, and personal survival of hypotheses. (b)And the market competition in personal learning, and the market survival of hypotheses under frictions of the investments and malinvestments of the individuals in advancing and defending their propositions. Now, what is the difference between “bayesian updating” and ‘learning’? Or is this terminology an attempt (pseudoscientific) to use an analogy as an appeal to scientific authority? For example, in computer science the value of bayesian systems is that they are better at ‘accounting for’ a large number of very small changes. So just as double entry accounting increased our ability to perceive and measure otherwise incommensurable aggregates to measure profit and loss, Bayesian learning is yet another improvement upon accounting that does not require we limit ourselves to the commensurability provided by money and prices. We can use any categories (identities) that we want. In the publication of scientific papers (which doesn’t have a good record) and books (which do have a good record) we are clearly within the limits of human introspection. But we rapidly lose the possibility of introspection in neural networks. So you just mean ‘learning’, where learning is always and everywhere produced by the process of exposure to information > free association > hypothesis > survival (or return) > weak theory > survival(or return) > strong theory or ‘law’ (or return) > revision(falsification)

    —“Bayesian updating is necessary so individuals are able to change their plausibilities consistently based on new evidence, without which knowledge creation would be impossible.”—

    So we account for change both positively reinforcing and negatively falsifying.

    —” secondary effects of the “market competition” “— AND —” nothing to do with the evidence”—

    And in case of the replication crisis in the social sciences; or in the case of the entire field of economics despite its financial literacy producing income statement outputs without the context of balance sheet constants; or in the case of physics losing generations to Bohr’s and Cantor’s (somewhat Einstein) re-primitivism of mathematics in physics. And of the fields only physical science grasping and integrating the Operationalist revolution that failed to take hold in every other science during the twentieth. Mathematical sciences have produced harmful externalities. The physical sciences are not innocent but other than physics produced the fewest externalities. The psychological and social sciences are arguably harmful if not reversing the gains made by the physical sciences. And economics is all but a desert of failure only another generation of mathematics will solve. So. The foundation of my criticism is that the presumption of innocence in the sciences is a falsehood. And that the harm by externality has cost us at least a hundred million dead. And the harm of sociology, psychology, economics and mathematics together have created a crisis as vast as that of the late empire. Conversely that the principle problem with the physical sciences is underinvestment given the increasing cost of experiments given the increasing differences between inquiry and human scale of sense perception. CLOSING So, yes, scientists learn by attempting to discover that which is not known by use of logical and physical instrumentation in tests of trial and error. The question is, when you make your claims what due diligence do you use? When taking and publishing (testifying to) measurements you only report facts. When publishing theories what are you testifying to? And what demarcates what is testifiable (publishable) and not? And as complexity increases (as we move from continuous physical relations where state cannot be stored and no ‘choice’ can be made, to continuous behavioral relations where state can be stored in memory and choice can be made) what criteria do you use to determine whether your statement (promise) is not the result of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading and framing, suggestion and obscurantism, the fictionalisms, or outright denial and deceit? Consistency, completeness, parsimony: Meaning: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Parsimony, and categorical, logical, empirical, operational consistency, within stated limits – and where psychology is involved, rational choice by incentive to acquire, maintain, or prevent loss, within the limits of knowledge and bounded rationality. This is the other side – the via-negativa defense against the immoral – of the scientific coin so to speak, where exploration – the via-positiva – is the moral. So what is universal in the scientific method? Well, that we learn through free association and incremental survival (darwinian falsification) by continuous exposure to competition, resulting in the positive reinforcement of explanatory power, and the negative reinforcement of failures of explanatory power (or deceit, or fraud, or incompetence), at the individual, interpersonal, and market levels of complexity, where our careers are punished for false promise of truthful testimony that we contribute to that market, and our careers are rewarded (somewhat) for promises of truthful testimony that we contribute to the market, that provide either new opportunity for investigation, new explanatory power, or new falsification of priors. So. the lesson? COMPLETENESS – FULL ACCOUNTING provides a very different understanding of science than does cherry picking and virtue signaling. Cheers

  • A Discussion on The Scientific Method as “Bayesian”

    Jan 24, 2020, 9:01 AM

    –“Bayesian”–

    This is a good start. Now I know the paradigm your working from and its limits. We have a long way to go. But smart folk will get there. My job is to (a) get you to operationalize bayesian learning instead of using it as a ‘magic word’. And once we are there, (b) to forgo the discipline’s self congratulatory presumption of its innocence, and demarcate between science, pseudoscience, and deceit. (c) and then to articulate the means by which we warranty against pseudoscience and deceit. The rather (humorous) framing is the presumption of innocence and positive intention or positive bias of the fields. And while the grammars (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) of the physical world are relatively simple, as we move from physical to biological, to economic, to legal, to cognitive and rational the problem increases in complexity, as well as opportunity for malfeasance.

    —“Bayesian updating is done by individuals. Market competition takes place in groups of individuals. So these are disjoint processes from the off, and there is no contradiction to both of them operating to some extent, and both of them being necessary.”—

    Correct. (a)Personal learning, and personal survival of hypotheses. (b)And the market competition in personal learning, and the market survival of hypotheses under frictions of the investments and malinvestments of the individuals in advancing and defending their propositions. Now, what is the difference between “bayesian updating” and ‘learning’? Or is this terminology an attempt (pseudoscientific) to use an analogy as an appeal to scientific authority? For example, in computer science the value of bayesian systems is that they are better at ‘accounting for’ a large number of very small changes. So just as double entry accounting increased our ability to perceive and measure otherwise incommensurable aggregates to measure profit and loss, Bayesian learning is yet another improvement upon accounting that does not require we limit ourselves to the commensurability provided by money and prices. We can use any categories (identities) that we want. In the publication of scientific papers (which doesn’t have a good record) and books (which do have a good record) we are clearly within the limits of human introspection. But we rapidly lose the possibility of introspection in neural networks. So you just mean ‘learning’, where learning is always and everywhere produced by the process of exposure to information > free association > hypothesis > survival (or return) > weak theory > survival(or return) > strong theory or ‘law’ (or return) > revision(falsification)

    —“Bayesian updating is necessary so individuals are able to change their plausibilities consistently based on new evidence, without which knowledge creation would be impossible.”—

    So we account for change both positively reinforcing and negatively falsifying.

    —” secondary effects of the “market competition” “— AND —” nothing to do with the evidence”—

    And in case of the replication crisis in the social sciences; or in the case of the entire field of economics despite its financial literacy producing income statement outputs without the context of balance sheet constants; or in the case of physics losing generations to Bohr’s and Cantor’s (somewhat Einstein) re-primitivism of mathematics in physics. And of the fields only physical science grasping and integrating the Operationalist revolution that failed to take hold in every other science during the twentieth. Mathematical sciences have produced harmful externalities. The physical sciences are not innocent but other than physics produced the fewest externalities. The psychological and social sciences are arguably harmful if not reversing the gains made by the physical sciences. And economics is all but a desert of failure only another generation of mathematics will solve. So. The foundation of my criticism is that the presumption of innocence in the sciences is a falsehood. And that the harm by externality has cost us at least a hundred million dead. And the harm of sociology, psychology, economics and mathematics together have created a crisis as vast as that of the late empire. Conversely that the principle problem with the physical sciences is underinvestment given the increasing cost of experiments given the increasing differences between inquiry and human scale of sense perception. CLOSING So, yes, scientists learn by attempting to discover that which is not known by use of logical and physical instrumentation in tests of trial and error. The question is, when you make your claims what due diligence do you use? When taking and publishing (testifying to) measurements you only report facts. When publishing theories what are you testifying to? And what demarcates what is testifiable (publishable) and not? And as complexity increases (as we move from continuous physical relations where state cannot be stored and no ‘choice’ can be made, to continuous behavioral relations where state can be stored in memory and choice can be made) what criteria do you use to determine whether your statement (promise) is not the result of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading and framing, suggestion and obscurantism, the fictionalisms, or outright denial and deceit? Consistency, completeness, parsimony: Meaning: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Parsimony, and categorical, logical, empirical, operational consistency, within stated limits – and where psychology is involved, rational choice by incentive to acquire, maintain, or prevent loss, within the limits of knowledge and bounded rationality. This is the other side – the via-negativa defense against the immoral – of the scientific coin so to speak, where exploration – the via-positiva – is the moral. So what is universal in the scientific method? Well, that we learn through free association and incremental survival (darwinian falsification) by continuous exposure to competition, resulting in the positive reinforcement of explanatory power, and the negative reinforcement of failures of explanatory power (or deceit, or fraud, or incompetence), at the individual, interpersonal, and market levels of complexity, where our careers are punished for false promise of truthful testimony that we contribute to that market, and our careers are rewarded (somewhat) for promises of truthful testimony that we contribute to the market, that provide either new opportunity for investigation, new explanatory power, or new falsification of priors. So. the lesson? COMPLETENESS – FULL ACCOUNTING provides a very different understanding of science than does cherry picking and virtue signaling. Cheers

  • More on Mathematical Platonism

    Jan 25, 2020, 10:04 AM I understand that you can’t convince a theologian to abandon supernatural dependency, nor can you convince a platonist to abandon his independence from reality. Both are habituations where the cost of reformation is beyond their comprehension. Science depends on realism, naturalism, operationalism, and empiricism is a process of producing testimony in the absence of faith – a warranty to the absence of faith, bias, fictionalism, and deceit. So, there is no substantive difference between the fictionalisms of theology(supernaturalism) and platonism(idealism), including mathematical platonism, where there is a vast substantive difference between Realism and those fictionalisms. The Realist argument is quite simple: that Realism, including Mathematical Realism, depends not upon declared (arbitrary) axioms but discovered(non arbitrary) laws: Realism, Naturalism, and Operationalism. And Platonism(Idealism) eliminates the dependency on operationalism in exchange for (at the cost of) circular reference, and theology eliminates the dependency on realism and naturalism again in exchange for (cost of) circular reference. Conversely, to testify to a claim, instead of circular reference we CAN only depend upon the sets: (a) realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, (b) categorical and logical internal consistency, (c) rational choice by known incentives under bounded rationality, and reciprocity by the same criteria in the case of others; and (d) stated limits, full accounting within those limits, and competitive parsimony in between propositions. So again, mathematics contains many fictionalisms (sophisms) to substitute obscurant non-operational for clear operational causes. First, the most obvious (as @pennyKarma has stated) is that (i) numbers exist only as names of positions (in an order) and positions in an order alone; (ii) given that all of mathematics is constructed using rational operations (ratio-operations, operations that express ratios) and all of mathematics must be because position is the only constant relation, and (iii) positions produce scale independence, then (iv) a limit is merely the means of arbitrarily choosing the precision at which one rounds upward. So that is step one, the number and rounding. Step two is the line, and three geometry. For step two the line, there is no number line. There are only positional names. One must fictionalize a line to create dependence upon the line. In other words create a circular reference, a tautology, not a proof. Step three is the geometric. Let’s take the square root of two which cannot exist (cannot be calculated) without first defining arbitrary limit of precision. The sophistry is that while yes we can deduce a ratio from geometric ideals, the pencil line on paper, or the string used to square four posts in construction, provide limits. I’ll avoid going through algebra, calculus and statistics on the same premises. In any event, mathematical sophistry has not gone through the reformation Brouwer recommended, Bridgman achieved in physics, Hilbert warned us about, and Cantor and Bohr buried us in for a century. And while, thanks to Turing, the cognitive scientists forced a reform in psychology by forcing their adoption of operationalism – all too slowly correcting a century of pseudoscience, the Turing revolution and the computer science revolution has failed to inspire a reformation in mathematics – which was lost in sets when it is and must be, like all things, an operational (existential) discipline. Instead, just as philosophers doubled down on the failure of the analytic program, the mathematicians have doubled down on the failure of the pure-mathematics program. So until we discover geometric equivalent of mathematics (which Wolfram has at least touched on), It will be impossible for the discipline of mathematics to reform. And we will continue to see mathematical sophistry and the pseudoscientific nonsense that results from it plague our civilization. My hope is that de-platonization and de-mystification of mathematics is made possible this century in an effort to improve mathematical education by restoring it to geometric operational and existential rather than set, verbal, and ideal sophistry. But ‘churches reform slowly and only as a last resort”.

  • More on Mathematical Platonism

    Jan 25, 2020, 10:04 AM I understand that you can’t convince a theologian to abandon supernatural dependency, nor can you convince a platonist to abandon his independence from reality. Both are habituations where the cost of reformation is beyond their comprehension. Science depends on realism, naturalism, operationalism, and empiricism is a process of producing testimony in the absence of faith – a warranty to the absence of faith, bias, fictionalism, and deceit. So, there is no substantive difference between the fictionalisms of theology(supernaturalism) and platonism(idealism), including mathematical platonism, where there is a vast substantive difference between Realism and those fictionalisms. The Realist argument is quite simple: that Realism, including Mathematical Realism, depends not upon declared (arbitrary) axioms but discovered(non arbitrary) laws: Realism, Naturalism, and Operationalism. And Platonism(Idealism) eliminates the dependency on operationalism in exchange for (at the cost of) circular reference, and theology eliminates the dependency on realism and naturalism again in exchange for (cost of) circular reference. Conversely, to testify to a claim, instead of circular reference we CAN only depend upon the sets: (a) realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, (b) categorical and logical internal consistency, (c) rational choice by known incentives under bounded rationality, and reciprocity by the same criteria in the case of others; and (d) stated limits, full accounting within those limits, and competitive parsimony in between propositions. So again, mathematics contains many fictionalisms (sophisms) to substitute obscurant non-operational for clear operational causes. First, the most obvious (as @pennyKarma has stated) is that (i) numbers exist only as names of positions (in an order) and positions in an order alone; (ii) given that all of mathematics is constructed using rational operations (ratio-operations, operations that express ratios) and all of mathematics must be because position is the only constant relation, and (iii) positions produce scale independence, then (iv) a limit is merely the means of arbitrarily choosing the precision at which one rounds upward. So that is step one, the number and rounding. Step two is the line, and three geometry. For step two the line, there is no number line. There are only positional names. One must fictionalize a line to create dependence upon the line. In other words create a circular reference, a tautology, not a proof. Step three is the geometric. Let’s take the square root of two which cannot exist (cannot be calculated) without first defining arbitrary limit of precision. The sophistry is that while yes we can deduce a ratio from geometric ideals, the pencil line on paper, or the string used to square four posts in construction, provide limits. I’ll avoid going through algebra, calculus and statistics on the same premises. In any event, mathematical sophistry has not gone through the reformation Brouwer recommended, Bridgman achieved in physics, Hilbert warned us about, and Cantor and Bohr buried us in for a century. And while, thanks to Turing, the cognitive scientists forced a reform in psychology by forcing their adoption of operationalism – all too slowly correcting a century of pseudoscience, the Turing revolution and the computer science revolution has failed to inspire a reformation in mathematics – which was lost in sets when it is and must be, like all things, an operational (existential) discipline. Instead, just as philosophers doubled down on the failure of the analytic program, the mathematicians have doubled down on the failure of the pure-mathematics program. So until we discover geometric equivalent of mathematics (which Wolfram has at least touched on), It will be impossible for the discipline of mathematics to reform. And we will continue to see mathematical sophistry and the pseudoscientific nonsense that results from it plague our civilization. My hope is that de-platonization and de-mystification of mathematics is made possible this century in an effort to improve mathematical education by restoring it to geometric operational and existential rather than set, verbal, and ideal sophistry. But ‘churches reform slowly and only as a last resort”.

  • Dennett’s Literary (platonic) Explanation of Consciousness Is a Pseudoscientific Interpretation

    Jan 30, 2020, 4:12 PM

    —“I think Daniel Dennet regards consciousness as purely illusory which I have not in the past found comprehensible.”– A Friend

    I think Dennett’s literary (platonic) explanation of consciousness is a pseudoscientific interpretation of the information we have at our disposal, but that I can interpret what he’s saying as simply primitive or romantic, or platonic narration of what is better explained in engineering terms. To say consciousness illusory makes no sense if Dennett means false. I don’t know what he means unless he is using a definition or standard that is nonsensical – and I think that’s the case. The experience we refer to as consciousness exists as experience that we can recall. But, instead of reforming philosophy and defining the term scientifically, he’s not reforming the term as it’s used in philosophy and therefor saying it’s illusory. I do the opposite and reform the term in philosophy as an error, and define it operationally (scientifically). In P what we do is reform all terms in all disciplines so that they are universally commensurable across all disciplines – or falsified. Operationally, predictions of fragments compete for attention and those that persist (aren’t falsified) cohere (survive) into what we consider experience. As far as I know we know the physical structure of the brain, how information is processed across, how coherence is produced by it, how memories are formed by it, and how attention is directed to control it, and what motivates(causes) our attention – at least at sufficiently to explain it in terms that are understandable as a mechanical process. the only difficult concept to explain is how our experience is coalesced into a stream of experience and momentary recursive comparison of changes in that memory – really, really, fast in real time. It’s so wonderful that it works that it’s terrifying. I think one of the aspects of mental existence we have no name for yet that we need to is the degree to which we grant precedence to sense(intuition), imagination(self), empathy (others, social), or reason (the analytic) – and whether we can even switch between them. Or put another way – the degree to which people are able to distinguish between an imaginary and non-correspondent perception of existence, and a predictive and correspondent perception of existence, and the priority we give to the sensory-emotional, physical, social, operational, or empirical experience of the world. It is very hard for me to imagine the world of hindus and muslims and not at all difficult the chinese or africans – even africans who still believe in magic. The degree of illusion created by mythologies somewhat amazes me and the addiction to these mythologies is something I have finally come to understand – it’s a very high cost to correct them. this is why theological abrahamism must never take root.

  • Dennett’s Literary (platonic) Explanation of Consciousness Is a Pseudoscientific Interpretation

    Jan 30, 2020, 4:12 PM

    —“I think Daniel Dennet regards consciousness as purely illusory which I have not in the past found comprehensible.”– A Friend

    I think Dennett’s literary (platonic) explanation of consciousness is a pseudoscientific interpretation of the information we have at our disposal, but that I can interpret what he’s saying as simply primitive or romantic, or platonic narration of what is better explained in engineering terms. To say consciousness illusory makes no sense if Dennett means false. I don’t know what he means unless he is using a definition or standard that is nonsensical – and I think that’s the case. The experience we refer to as consciousness exists as experience that we can recall. But, instead of reforming philosophy and defining the term scientifically, he’s not reforming the term as it’s used in philosophy and therefor saying it’s illusory. I do the opposite and reform the term in philosophy as an error, and define it operationally (scientifically). In P what we do is reform all terms in all disciplines so that they are universally commensurable across all disciplines – or falsified. Operationally, predictions of fragments compete for attention and those that persist (aren’t falsified) cohere (survive) into what we consider experience. As far as I know we know the physical structure of the brain, how information is processed across, how coherence is produced by it, how memories are formed by it, and how attention is directed to control it, and what motivates(causes) our attention – at least at sufficiently to explain it in terms that are understandable as a mechanical process. the only difficult concept to explain is how our experience is coalesced into a stream of experience and momentary recursive comparison of changes in that memory – really, really, fast in real time. It’s so wonderful that it works that it’s terrifying. I think one of the aspects of mental existence we have no name for yet that we need to is the degree to which we grant precedence to sense(intuition), imagination(self), empathy (others, social), or reason (the analytic) – and whether we can even switch between them. Or put another way – the degree to which people are able to distinguish between an imaginary and non-correspondent perception of existence, and a predictive and correspondent perception of existence, and the priority we give to the sensory-emotional, physical, social, operational, or empirical experience of the world. It is very hard for me to imagine the world of hindus and muslims and not at all difficult the chinese or africans – even africans who still believe in magic. The degree of illusion created by mythologies somewhat amazes me and the addiction to these mythologies is something I have finally come to understand – it’s a very high cost to correct them. this is why theological abrahamism must never take root.

  • A Significant Correction to Hanson

    The constant over time is the european group strategy structurally embedded in our geography, our military strategy, our dependence upon militia, and the resulting dependence upon our law to mediate differences between a militia of universal warriors, pastoralists, and farmers. Our present Europeanism is based upon anglo-germanic, based upon, roman, is based upon greek, is based upon western indo european military organization, legal organization, and heroic (man is the equal to gods) religion, and Trifunctionalism. This is a purely empirical meritocratic aristocratic civlization mediated by law as a competitor to religion and authority., TRIFUNCTIONALIM. Where Trifunctionalism produces markets and suppresses authority. This forces CREATIVITY as the only means of climbing the (shallow) dominance hierarchy. Without flood rivers like the great river civilizations, we could never create a central parasitic bureaucracy until the 20th century. (and that is what we are seeking to overthrow at the moment.) The mediterranean (Greeks) were simply the first europeans to produce sufficient trade to need central administration and therefore writing – writing it down. The romans were the first to SCALE it. The northern europeans preserved that military and legal strategy through the dark ages, despite the collapse of mediterranean trade and the governments and institutions made possible by that trade. The semitic intrusion in to western civlization by judaism christianity and islam was a COUNTER REVOLUTION against european group strategy and tradition. But the semitic infection could not defeat the military and legal traditions. When trade returned in central and northern Europe, and Aristotle returned, it was possible for europeans to re-harmonize their military, legal and social orders with their literary and educational orders, resulting in the sequential destruction of the semitic invasion that ‘de-harmonized’ (placed into conflict) our religion, education, and literature, with our demonstrated behavior. This process of restoration by reharmonization continued through Darwin, despite the french napoleonic attempt at preserving despotism and napoleon’s attempt to destroy the holy roman (German) empire. However, when Darwin VALIDATED the western groups strategy, the semites tried the same ‘trick’ as they did in the ancient world. In the ancient world they sold the false promise of life after death. in the modern world they sold the false promise of equality, unlimited growth, the end of scarcity, and the pretense of western ‘oppression’. When it was western civlization that dragged mankind almost exclusively out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the vicissitudes of nature all but hostile to life. Butt he the secret to western civlization is not only our traditions, and the creativity produced by our traditions, but the EUGENICS that resulted from the sequence of slave, freeman, citizen, sovereign. And that under meritocracy and scarcity, and under manorialism, and finally under markets, especially under manorialism, markets, and the absolute nuclear family – the result was continuous eugenics that all but eliminated the dead weight of the underclasses which burden all other civilizations but the ashkenazim and the east asians. So, the dirty secret of western civlization is that we develop faster than all other human civilizations combined at the COST of continuous suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses, so that the surpluses of production can be devoted the the production of commons and the high returns therefrom. As such the second semitic destruction of western civlization arises from the false promises in PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC instead of SUPERNATURAL deceits, by the sequence Boaz (anthropology to destroy evolutionary selection ), Freud (psychology to destroy our use of rational incentives), Marx (economics and sociology to destroy the markets between the classes), Adorno-From (to destroy Culture), Derrida-et-al ( To destroy by social construction), Friedan (Feminism to destroy the family as the compromise between the genders) Trotsky-neocons + Rothbard Libertarians (to destroy rule of law), Cantor, Einstein-Bohr (mathematics and physics – to destroy operational mathematics and logic) and many others too numerous to list. So there having just presented a very simple test: why is it that the Jews continuously, millennia produce supernaturalism, pseudoscience and sophistry to circumvent the physical laws of nature, the natural laws of cooperation, and the biological law of evolutionary necessity? In other words, either the jews and arabs are in fact engaged in a vast conspiracy to destroy every civlization on earth by false promise of defeat of physical natural and evolutionary laws. Or groups of people think differently. Europeans THINK DIFFERENTLY. In fact, we had to teach the whole world to think. We are unique. And they are trying to destroy us for the second time by the second means: insurrection from within (Judaism, Christianity) and without (Islam) by the false promises that result in dysgenia and the iterative collapse of civilizations: Egyptian, North African, Levantine, Anatolian byzantine, greek, Persian, Iranic-Steppe, and Northwest Indian. As for christianity: Any religion must produce Mindfulness (Self), Humility (Others), Piety (The Universe) – that’s what semitic religion achieve. The Best religions produce Excellence (investment), Truth (word), Reciprocity (action), Duty (Compensation), Charity (Insurance) – that’s what european religions DID achieve. The reason christianity spread is that until then the underclasses and women had no means of obtaining virtue. Christianity provides virtue or the illusion of virtue, even if you do nothing except refrain from doing bad. In a world of semi-domesticated semi-human animals lacking ability, literacy, knowledge, capital, and trust, christianity provided what the pagan religions didn’t: a way for slaves to have self respect by not doing bad rather than the western model of demonstrating one did good. 16John Mark, Brandon Hayes and 14 others 1 Comment 7 Shares Like Comment Share Comments Robert Burns Robert Burns I couldn’t possibly agree with you more wholeheartedly. Bravo and brilliantly presented my Brother.

  • A Significant Correction to Hanson

    The constant over time is the european group strategy structurally embedded in our geography, our military strategy, our dependence upon militia, and the resulting dependence upon our law to mediate differences between a militia of universal warriors, pastoralists, and farmers. Our present Europeanism is based upon anglo-germanic, based upon, roman, is based upon greek, is based upon western indo european military organization, legal organization, and heroic (man is the equal to gods) religion, and Trifunctionalism. This is a purely empirical meritocratic aristocratic civlization mediated by law as a competitor to religion and authority., TRIFUNCTIONALIM. Where Trifunctionalism produces markets and suppresses authority. This forces CREATIVITY as the only means of climbing the (shallow) dominance hierarchy. Without flood rivers like the great river civilizations, we could never create a central parasitic bureaucracy until the 20th century. (and that is what we are seeking to overthrow at the moment.) The mediterranean (Greeks) were simply the first europeans to produce sufficient trade to need central administration and therefore writing – writing it down. The romans were the first to SCALE it. The northern europeans preserved that military and legal strategy through the dark ages, despite the collapse of mediterranean trade and the governments and institutions made possible by that trade. The semitic intrusion in to western civlization by judaism christianity and islam was a COUNTER REVOLUTION against european group strategy and tradition. But the semitic infection could not defeat the military and legal traditions. When trade returned in central and northern Europe, and Aristotle returned, it was possible for europeans to re-harmonize their military, legal and social orders with their literary and educational orders, resulting in the sequential destruction of the semitic invasion that ‘de-harmonized’ (placed into conflict) our religion, education, and literature, with our demonstrated behavior. This process of restoration by reharmonization continued through Darwin, despite the french napoleonic attempt at preserving despotism and napoleon’s attempt to destroy the holy roman (German) empire. However, when Darwin VALIDATED the western groups strategy, the semites tried the same ‘trick’ as they did in the ancient world. In the ancient world they sold the false promise of life after death. in the modern world they sold the false promise of equality, unlimited growth, the end of scarcity, and the pretense of western ‘oppression’. When it was western civlization that dragged mankind almost exclusively out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the vicissitudes of nature all but hostile to life. Butt he the secret to western civlization is not only our traditions, and the creativity produced by our traditions, but the EUGENICS that resulted from the sequence of slave, freeman, citizen, sovereign. And that under meritocracy and scarcity, and under manorialism, and finally under markets, especially under manorialism, markets, and the absolute nuclear family – the result was continuous eugenics that all but eliminated the dead weight of the underclasses which burden all other civilizations but the ashkenazim and the east asians. So, the dirty secret of western civlization is that we develop faster than all other human civilizations combined at the COST of continuous suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses, so that the surpluses of production can be devoted the the production of commons and the high returns therefrom. As such the second semitic destruction of western civlization arises from the false promises in PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC instead of SUPERNATURAL deceits, by the sequence Boaz (anthropology to destroy evolutionary selection ), Freud (psychology to destroy our use of rational incentives), Marx (economics and sociology to destroy the markets between the classes), Adorno-From (to destroy Culture), Derrida-et-al ( To destroy by social construction), Friedan (Feminism to destroy the family as the compromise between the genders) Trotsky-neocons + Rothbard Libertarians (to destroy rule of law), Cantor, Einstein-Bohr (mathematics and physics – to destroy operational mathematics and logic) and many others too numerous to list. So there having just presented a very simple test: why is it that the Jews continuously, millennia produce supernaturalism, pseudoscience and sophistry to circumvent the physical laws of nature, the natural laws of cooperation, and the biological law of evolutionary necessity? In other words, either the jews and arabs are in fact engaged in a vast conspiracy to destroy every civlization on earth by false promise of defeat of physical natural and evolutionary laws. Or groups of people think differently. Europeans THINK DIFFERENTLY. In fact, we had to teach the whole world to think. We are unique. And they are trying to destroy us for the second time by the second means: insurrection from within (Judaism, Christianity) and without (Islam) by the false promises that result in dysgenia and the iterative collapse of civilizations: Egyptian, North African, Levantine, Anatolian byzantine, greek, Persian, Iranic-Steppe, and Northwest Indian. As for christianity: Any religion must produce Mindfulness (Self), Humility (Others), Piety (The Universe) – that’s what semitic religion achieve. The Best religions produce Excellence (investment), Truth (word), Reciprocity (action), Duty (Compensation), Charity (Insurance) – that’s what european religions DID achieve. The reason christianity spread is that until then the underclasses and women had no means of obtaining virtue. Christianity provides virtue or the illusion of virtue, even if you do nothing except refrain from doing bad. In a world of semi-domesticated semi-human animals lacking ability, literacy, knowledge, capital, and trust, christianity provided what the pagan religions didn’t: a way for slaves to have self respect by not doing bad rather than the western model of demonstrating one did good. 16John Mark, Brandon Hayes and 14 others 1 Comment 7 Shares Like Comment Share Comments Robert Burns Robert Burns I couldn’t possibly agree with you more wholeheartedly. Bravo and brilliantly presented my Brother.