Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Christian Pseudoscience: Electric Universe and Langan’s Cognitive-Theoretic Model

    Feb 1, 2020, 9:42 AM Each is another ridiculous pseudoscience – it’s just christian biased pseudoscience vs jewish biased pseudoscience(marx, freud, cantor, boas, bohr, derrida, friedan, etc). Every culture has tried some version of pseudoscience or sophistry to persist it’s traditional model of the universe. But, no pseudoscience pls. We know the laws of the universe. We have at least one problem left and I am pretty sure we will have to solve it by computational trial and error like protein folding. We may or may not ever know how many universes there are, and how they emerge, but within this universe we are going to know relatively shortly as much about the physical and biological as we do about the atomic and chemical. The only thing I put forward is that these same laws apply to man’s behavior, and that memory provides an accounting system that allows us to cooperate by trade of debts and credits in time. If there are gods, they have written their laws in the universe for all of us to see. The rest of history is full of men who lied or told half truths about those laws. And there appears to be no means by which for any god to influence us, other than as stories in the minds of others. This is where science leads. This is why some people need faith. Because they cannot bear the truth. And we must not deprive people of their means of sedation. On the other hand we may not permit them to influence the material world with their sedatives.

  • Christian Pseudoscience: Electric Universe and Langan’s Cognitive-Theoretic Model

    Feb 1, 2020, 9:42 AM Each is another ridiculous pseudoscience – it’s just christian biased pseudoscience vs jewish biased pseudoscience(marx, freud, cantor, boas, bohr, derrida, friedan, etc). Every culture has tried some version of pseudoscience or sophistry to persist it’s traditional model of the universe. But, no pseudoscience pls. We know the laws of the universe. We have at least one problem left and I am pretty sure we will have to solve it by computational trial and error like protein folding. We may or may not ever know how many universes there are, and how they emerge, but within this universe we are going to know relatively shortly as much about the physical and biological as we do about the atomic and chemical. The only thing I put forward is that these same laws apply to man’s behavior, and that memory provides an accounting system that allows us to cooperate by trade of debts and credits in time. If there are gods, they have written their laws in the universe for all of us to see. The rest of history is full of men who lied or told half truths about those laws. And there appears to be no means by which for any god to influence us, other than as stories in the minds of others. This is where science leads. This is why some people need faith. Because they cannot bear the truth. And we must not deprive people of their means of sedation. On the other hand we may not permit them to influence the material world with their sedatives.

  • Example of How Legal Education Fails

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:36 AM

    —“The Libertarian Case for Rejecting Meat Consumption” If George Orwell were alive today, he would troll vegetarians. In The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), Orwell described with exasperation how mere mention of the words “Socialism” or “Communism” seemed to…”—

    Yeah. File this under “stupid libertarian games by the application of stupid Pilpul games from Abrahamic theology”. You can’t have a contract with someone or something that can’t empathize and sympathize, cooperate, negotiate terms, or hold to a contract.

    —“As a matter of law, your last sentence is incorrect. Most contracts are made with fictitious entities (corps, LLCs, etc.) that don’t feel anything. Most contracts are form contracts that can’t be negotiated. And many contracts (e.g., terms of service) are offered by a computer.”– Well Meaning Fool —“But the LLC can agree, through it’s representatives, to a contract, and be held accountable for violating the same.”—

    That’s a sophistry Corwin. There is always and everywhere an owner of an entity. And a corporate entity exists solely as a means of limiting the liability of its members, in order to encourage investment, the result of which is taxes, for the gov’t as insurer of last resort. The fact that we create asset holding vehicles to insulate them from liability cascades, does not mean that in order to act, someone or some group doesn’t act on behalf of the members of that asset store.

    —-“That’s a bad response. First, you completely ignored everything other than the fictitious entity aspect of my post. Why? (Hint: I’m right and you know it.) Second, identifying humans *somewhere* doesn’t establish sympathy or anything close to it.”—

    1) I don’t make errors. Especially in jurisprudence. Even more so in operational construction – but you don’t know that. 2) Please: how any such entity can come into existence without an human being able to enter into a contract. 3) Contract requires consent. What can consent? 4) What faculties are necessary for consent? (Sympathy: Thought, Empathy: feelings, and Cognitive

    —“That’s all horseshit. The entity isn’t merely a transmission of its human parts. Those parts may disagree, not pay attention, delegate decisions to automatic processes, and so on. Furthermore, it says a lot that you ignored my comment on standardized contracts.”—

    Someone eventually acts. Sorry. A horse, pony, cow, sheep, dog can’t act. They can’t enter into contract. They cant sympathize (mental) or empathize (emotional) or even comprehend contract. At best they can only learn to trust you and your behavior or not by repetitive experience. Chimps can pass the mirror test. Gorillas only sometimes, and dogs not at all. We cannot have a contract for cooperation with non-rational species (series: sentience > awareness > consciousness > reason > calculation > computation )

    —“Indeed, you (and fictitious entites) can accept contracts without ever reading them — or even looking at them — much less engaging in any thought process of any kind. It happens all the time with EULAs, TOSes, various click wraps, parking agreements, and so on.”—-

    So people acted, just as I said. And standardized contracts serve as standards of weights and measures. Their context conveys their content. If it doesn’t then the court doesn’t uphold it. Standardized contracts do nothing more than explain the existing law on the subject so that individuals know the limit of their rights. People are still accountable for their actions because they CAN have read, understood and agreed to thoughtless acceptance of rules. Papers and Titles can’t act, so can’t agree. Only people can act. Corporations are not superior to people, they are WARDS of people (children). People can act on behalf of wards, wards cannot act. All corporations regardless of tax and decision constraint are operated by people. Boards, Executives, Shareholders, Employees, have limited liability for the Ward (corporation). That’s the purpose of corporations. I am kind of surprised that Platonism, against which legal education should protect, is something you cannot seem to avoid – or even comprehend. I also find it somewhat humorous when people in the profession – the equivalent of craftsmen – debate me on matters of truth, constitution, and jurisprudence. Debate me on procedure and legislative and regulatory matters (local custom) sure. These are pragmatisms not truths. There are a not insignificant number of lifetime lawyers that have said “I never understood the logic of the law until you taught it.” I do natural law (law), testimony, evidence, jurisprudence, and decidability, under strict construction from reciprocity. Law is science not custom.Custom is falsified by the science.

  • Example of How Legal Education Fails

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:36 AM

    —“The Libertarian Case for Rejecting Meat Consumption” If George Orwell were alive today, he would troll vegetarians. In The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), Orwell described with exasperation how mere mention of the words “Socialism” or “Communism” seemed to…”—

    Yeah. File this under “stupid libertarian games by the application of stupid Pilpul games from Abrahamic theology”. You can’t have a contract with someone or something that can’t empathize and sympathize, cooperate, negotiate terms, or hold to a contract.

    —“As a matter of law, your last sentence is incorrect. Most contracts are made with fictitious entities (corps, LLCs, etc.) that don’t feel anything. Most contracts are form contracts that can’t be negotiated. And many contracts (e.g., terms of service) are offered by a computer.”– Well Meaning Fool —“But the LLC can agree, through it’s representatives, to a contract, and be held accountable for violating the same.”—

    That’s a sophistry Corwin. There is always and everywhere an owner of an entity. And a corporate entity exists solely as a means of limiting the liability of its members, in order to encourage investment, the result of which is taxes, for the gov’t as insurer of last resort. The fact that we create asset holding vehicles to insulate them from liability cascades, does not mean that in order to act, someone or some group doesn’t act on behalf of the members of that asset store.

    —-“That’s a bad response. First, you completely ignored everything other than the fictitious entity aspect of my post. Why? (Hint: I’m right and you know it.) Second, identifying humans *somewhere* doesn’t establish sympathy or anything close to it.”—

    1) I don’t make errors. Especially in jurisprudence. Even more so in operational construction – but you don’t know that. 2) Please: how any such entity can come into existence without an human being able to enter into a contract. 3) Contract requires consent. What can consent? 4) What faculties are necessary for consent? (Sympathy: Thought, Empathy: feelings, and Cognitive

    —“That’s all horseshit. The entity isn’t merely a transmission of its human parts. Those parts may disagree, not pay attention, delegate decisions to automatic processes, and so on. Furthermore, it says a lot that you ignored my comment on standardized contracts.”—

    Someone eventually acts. Sorry. A horse, pony, cow, sheep, dog can’t act. They can’t enter into contract. They cant sympathize (mental) or empathize (emotional) or even comprehend contract. At best they can only learn to trust you and your behavior or not by repetitive experience. Chimps can pass the mirror test. Gorillas only sometimes, and dogs not at all. We cannot have a contract for cooperation with non-rational species (series: sentience > awareness > consciousness > reason > calculation > computation )

    —“Indeed, you (and fictitious entites) can accept contracts without ever reading them — or even looking at them — much less engaging in any thought process of any kind. It happens all the time with EULAs, TOSes, various click wraps, parking agreements, and so on.”—-

    So people acted, just as I said. And standardized contracts serve as standards of weights and measures. Their context conveys their content. If it doesn’t then the court doesn’t uphold it. Standardized contracts do nothing more than explain the existing law on the subject so that individuals know the limit of their rights. People are still accountable for their actions because they CAN have read, understood and agreed to thoughtless acceptance of rules. Papers and Titles can’t act, so can’t agree. Only people can act. Corporations are not superior to people, they are WARDS of people (children). People can act on behalf of wards, wards cannot act. All corporations regardless of tax and decision constraint are operated by people. Boards, Executives, Shareholders, Employees, have limited liability for the Ward (corporation). That’s the purpose of corporations. I am kind of surprised that Platonism, against which legal education should protect, is something you cannot seem to avoid – or even comprehend. I also find it somewhat humorous when people in the profession – the equivalent of craftsmen – debate me on matters of truth, constitution, and jurisprudence. Debate me on procedure and legislative and regulatory matters (local custom) sure. These are pragmatisms not truths. There are a not insignificant number of lifetime lawyers that have said “I never understood the logic of the law until you taught it.” I do natural law (law), testimony, evidence, jurisprudence, and decidability, under strict construction from reciprocity. Law is science not custom.Custom is falsified by the science.

  • Christianity is the religion of false promise, ignorance, deceit, manipulation,

    Christianity is the religion of false promise, ignorance, deceit, manipulation, enserfment, poverty, and the dark ages, that asks women, slaves, and the weak, to submit to a false god, of an alien people, who produced nothing except lies, usury, rent seeking, and organized crime.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 13:11:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264544600418631681

    Reply addressees: @HanielAzzi @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264541231641694209

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @HanielAzzi @DegenRolf We are the only gods that may yet be. And in the test of civilizations,only western man discovered the laws of the universe and adapted their civilization to mirror them. If there were gods, europeans would be the chosen people, aristotle their prophet, and truth their scripture.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1264541231641694209

  • Name Calling Doolittle Number 9999999999….

    Feb 3, 2020, 3:33 PM

    —“I don’t know how many things you’ve been accused of being, but here’s one you might find interesting.🤣”— A Friend

    (re: doolittle) ….—“He’s a wannabe Nassim Taleb. He’s trying to re invent stoicism.”–Sabo Vojvodic

    LOL…. That’s pretty much missing the ballpark.. by a few continents… I did work on religion for a year, and did push for stoicism as one of the answers to mindfulness – until I understood it’s the stoic method of discipline but not it’s virtues. So, it’s really just a matter of complexity. People don’t have a frame for Propertarianism other than ideology, philosophy. If I sold red lollipops people would understand Red Lollipops. If I sold something trivial like “The NAP”, people would understand Red-Lollipop NAP. But I sell, a methodology producing a universally commensurable value natural vocabulary, grammar, and logic across all fields, a table of grammars explaining all paradigms of communication, an explanation of the means of undermining western civilization by the use of abrahamic method of deception – the polar opposite of aristotelian testimony – a method of falsifying testimony using that language to complete the scientific method, the formal logic of the psychological and social sciences, uniting hard and soft sciences, the strict construction of law, using that language and method, a constitution restoring the american constitution and the foundations of western civilization; and and explanation for the success of western civilization and the failure or stagnation or decline of other civilizations. Ok. So. We’ve had a the socrates(criticis) plato(justificationism) aristotle (falsificaton) program; The paul-whomever-augustine program; the Bacon-Locke-smith-hume program to restore aristotle, the rousseau-Kantian-german idealist program (thru Heidegger) to undermine aristotle, and the marxist-postmodernist-feminist-denialist program to undermine the entire western tradition again. And in my view im’ completing the hilbert-brouwer/bridgman-maxwell-darwin-crick-menger-popper-kuhn-hayek program that was interrupted by the war, and the invasion of the west by the marxists and jews. And for some reason it’s hard to imagine that P is on the same scale as Aristotle – When, it’s really just rewriting and completing Aristotle’s project in fully scientific prose. (Not that it was my intention. It’s just the outcome.) So yeah. It’s waaaaaay too much for people to understand P if they don’t know the history of thought.’

  • Name Calling Doolittle Number 9999999999….

    Feb 3, 2020, 3:33 PM

    —“I don’t know how many things you’ve been accused of being, but here’s one you might find interesting.🤣”— A Friend

    (re: doolittle) ….—“He’s a wannabe Nassim Taleb. He’s trying to re invent stoicism.”–Sabo Vojvodic

    LOL…. That’s pretty much missing the ballpark.. by a few continents… I did work on religion for a year, and did push for stoicism as one of the answers to mindfulness – until I understood it’s the stoic method of discipline but not it’s virtues. So, it’s really just a matter of complexity. People don’t have a frame for Propertarianism other than ideology, philosophy. If I sold red lollipops people would understand Red Lollipops. If I sold something trivial like “The NAP”, people would understand Red-Lollipop NAP. But I sell, a methodology producing a universally commensurable value natural vocabulary, grammar, and logic across all fields, a table of grammars explaining all paradigms of communication, an explanation of the means of undermining western civilization by the use of abrahamic method of deception – the polar opposite of aristotelian testimony – a method of falsifying testimony using that language to complete the scientific method, the formal logic of the psychological and social sciences, uniting hard and soft sciences, the strict construction of law, using that language and method, a constitution restoring the american constitution and the foundations of western civilization; and and explanation for the success of western civilization and the failure or stagnation or decline of other civilizations. Ok. So. We’ve had a the socrates(criticis) plato(justificationism) aristotle (falsificaton) program; The paul-whomever-augustine program; the Bacon-Locke-smith-hume program to restore aristotle, the rousseau-Kantian-german idealist program (thru Heidegger) to undermine aristotle, and the marxist-postmodernist-feminist-denialist program to undermine the entire western tradition again. And in my view im’ completing the hilbert-brouwer/bridgman-maxwell-darwin-crick-menger-popper-kuhn-hayek program that was interrupted by the war, and the invasion of the west by the marxists and jews. And for some reason it’s hard to imagine that P is on the same scale as Aristotle – When, it’s really just rewriting and completing Aristotle’s project in fully scientific prose. (Not that it was my intention. It’s just the outcome.) So yeah. It’s waaaaaay too much for people to understand P if they don’t know the history of thought.’

  • re: Jackson Crawford, Tyr vs. Odin as Chief God

    Feb 24, 2020, 4:29 PM In order to suppress controversy you’re overstating your case. You’re representing sources, because under the defensive protection of the scientific method, we don’t hypothesize without evidence. Meanwhile I think Dumezil and the rest of us are interested in the evolution of european natural religion over time. To claim we can’t use etymology which is about as close to genetic evidence that we come, is rather unscientific, and to claim we can’t apply the same method of analysis to mythology is also. And to claim the popularity of the farmer’s god over the ruling class’ god in a tripartite hierarchical society given the difference in those demographics isn’t scientific either. Every mythos we know of evolved like every political and legal technology and every narrative technology by rules similar to language. Every mythic tradition is subject to the same forensics. So you’re creating conflict where there isn’t any. It is very hard to argue that Odin didn’t rise to prominence some time between the IE expansion and first testimony (roman). That would mean that european natural religion had a deus ex machina moment and Odin came out of nowhere in contrast to the entire cross civilizational IE pantheon. In the context of all those european mythologies, Odin is a pretty clear rotation into prominence. And Odin is the ‘odd man out’ in european religion. Of the european iranic and indo-iranic branches, each group evolved deities to fulfill the needs of a survival narrative given geographic and cultural competition. Europeans gods are are interesting because conquering (and replacing) early neolithic farmers was easier than the more advanced civilizations of the indus and mesopotamian regions. They were under less adaptive pressure. Yet still we have Odin. Why? That’s the interesting question. How did he rotate into prominence and why? So to say Odin is the primary germanic god – well of course he is by the thirteenth century record. That doesn’t tell us anything interesting. It doesn’t provide explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us why and where he came from. What change or pressure or advantage caused the germanic branch of the european expansion to rotate a psychopomp into the primary god (all father) to replace sky father? What drove the germanic adaptation (rotation) of a psychopomp into the god of the aristocracy?

  • Ivan Tries and Fails – Hot to Spot a Sophist

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:42 AM (people not grasping closure) P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible) thought. … Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scientific.

    —“Let’s suppose all that is true, then how could you make a case for “P-law” in anything but P-law? The fact that you consistently engage in bog-standard rhetoric to “prove” P-law puts the lie to the whole thing.”—Ivan the Above Average @AboveIvan

    How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic? The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’. You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail. You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven’t taken the time to fully entrap you in demonstrating it. The only way to falsify P is to run cases: tests. All you will discover is undecidability (testimony), where you find falsehood (inference). The fact that you’re still stuck in the early 20th c because philosophy was a dead end for truth, and limited to choice (or deceit) is simply that you’ve overinvested in a malinvestment. Reformation is extremely expensive. And humans protect investments (loss aversion). Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable one cannot make a truth claim. For a statement to be testifiable requires it survive the tests of all dimensions, because the only closure available is falsification of all dimensions. Sorry. Just is.

  • Ivan Tries and Fails – Hot to Spot a Sophist

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:42 AM (people not grasping closure) P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible) thought. … Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scientific.

    —“Let’s suppose all that is true, then how could you make a case for “P-law” in anything but P-law? The fact that you consistently engage in bog-standard rhetoric to “prove” P-law puts the lie to the whole thing.”—Ivan the Above Average @AboveIvan

    How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic? The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’. You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail. You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven’t taken the time to fully entrap you in demonstrating it. The only way to falsify P is to run cases: tests. All you will discover is undecidability (testimony), where you find falsehood (inference). The fact that you’re still stuck in the early 20th c because philosophy was a dead end for truth, and limited to choice (or deceit) is simply that you’ve overinvested in a malinvestment. Reformation is extremely expensive. And humans protect investments (loss aversion). Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable one cannot make a truth claim. For a statement to be testifiable requires it survive the tests of all dimensions, because the only closure available is falsification of all dimensions. Sorry. Just is.