Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • LINDSAY’S “WOKE CENTER” By his own criteria, by his own demonstrated argument, J

    LINDSAY’S “WOKE CENTER”
    By his own criteria, by his own demonstrated argument, James Lindsay @ConceptualJames represents the “Woke Center”: Meaning all is well, and don’t change anything, we’re all doing fine here. Elite overproduction. Credentialism, Financialism, Labor arbitrage, and parasitic extraction from the middle, working, and lower classes is not happening.” James engages in verbal hand waving in order to criticize the right and left while demonstrating he’s using the same techniques invented by the left, copied and used by the right against the left, and by lindsay to claim some sort of privileged insight, ridiculing both, without providing a single solution to the crisis of the age – and in doing so, persisting the crisis of the age. The only reason he gains any attention is his imitation of Trump to accuse and provoke moral outrage for attention while contributing nothing to the solution to the very real problems we’ve produced by the combination of the progressive and marxist and neoliberal economic ideologies.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-13 03:24:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1878644225837068288

  • So in other words, you have no operational means of achieving that end that you

    So in other words, you have no operational means of achieving that end that you claim is superior, and it’s just a fictionalism – a fantasy?

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-08 20:37:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1877092406333473020

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1877091597365494136

  • Criticism: Curt: –“Separate houses for women? That won’t work!”– Houses of gov

    Criticism: Curt: –“Separate houses for women? That won’t work!”–

    Houses of government formed under western individual (or at least familial) sovereignty and subsequent limits on authority for the purpose of developing concurrency between the classes as a means of creating a market for the production of commons between the classes without violating that sovereignty those limits.
    Women are not a mindless mob – they have priorities counter to the purpose of government which is the production of the capital of the commons which produces reduction in costs for all.
    Your argument is that women cannot be educated, courts established, legislation imposed, laws discoverted to limit the female as much as we have the male instincts and intuitions that are counter to the production of commons.
    Women are environmentally susceptible more so than men, But it’s quite clear that we can create environments. ANd women are more adaptive to such things than men.

    The net is whether we want to pay the cost of domesticating women as thoroughly as we have men, so that their political participation is possible. That cost depends upon the personality and IQ distribution of women in the polity and therefore their adaptability. If IQ declines further the possibility becomes irrelevant. If IQ returned to 115 (pre-industrial revolution) then I think such a thing is possible. In the meantime we merely have to make the choice. I would prefer institutionally domesticating women and limiting political participation to those demonstrating responsibility for the commons and its ever expanding capitalization.

    But it would require an experiment. The reason being that the value of femininity is very high and is a capital we fail to account for like much of social capital. And if we were to lose femininity in exchange for their domestication and integration into politics (which appears to be the case)then personally I would say the trade off doesn’t appear a worthy one.

    I work on solving problems, not admitting defeat just because those who came before me were defeated. 😉

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @RichardArion1

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 20:54:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876371668819652608

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876367042606928214

  • Accusation without argument. And I am quite certain I can defeat any such argume

    Accusation without argument. And I am quite certain I can defeat any such argument. It’s not as though Hoffman lacks critics.
    The mathematics consist of simplified simulations not proofs. That said that’s not the point: the reversal of the primacy of existence over experience is.…

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-04 14:39:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1875552681219203075

    Reply addressees: @MichaelADominy1 @drawveloper

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1875544186851881353

  • Sorry but this doesn’t hold up – Hoffman’s either exaggerating to make a point o

    Sorry but this doesn’t hold up – Hoffman’s either exaggerating to make a point or simply wrong.
    1) There exists a zero point of energy in the quantum background.
    2) There exists a zero point of time in the quantum background.
    3) All life forms exist at some scale, in some gravity, processing information at some rate, categorizing objects, spaces, and backgrounds at some rate, given the rate of sensation, perception, action, and rewards on action possible by the organism.
    4) The difference between life forms is merely their scale and their rates that determine the priority of objects, spaces, and backgrounds. However otherwise, there is no meaningful difference in the abstract – the processes are the same.
    5) As organisms evolve complexity they will deterministically grasp this just as humans have, and as such all intelligent organisms will converge on the same general laws of the universe, and categorization of the universe as we have: by scale independence.
    6) There is no evidence that humans perceive the world differently from other animals except in degree of resolution (precision of information), memory (volume of information) and capacity for categorization (scale) and prediction (time). In fact the precision of human sense-perception-cognition(modeling)-prediction(auto-association)- and action(coordinated motion) is so disturbingly accurate that we must intentionally construct ‘deceptions’ (optical illusions) to overload our pattern recognition to violate that precision.
    7) As such we can demonstrate for example the shading problem (checkerboard) or the object disambiguation problem (missing jet engine problem) or the shape prediction problem (elephant legs example) all compensate by assisting us with disambiguation (increased precision) rather than falsehood (simplification of prediction of object recognition).
    8) AFAIK Hoffman is only trying to make this point. But making it poorly and therefore promoting pseudoscience. The truth is I cannot find a single philosopher that is not engaging in pseudoscience of some sort today, with the least bad being John Searle and recently deceased Daniel Dennett. I’m surprised anyone even interviews anyone else. It’s embarrassing.

    Reply addressees: @drawveloper

    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-03 23:27:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1875323024167333889

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1875202977247666605

  • Again. While you’re using more detailed explanation, this is just another versio

    Again. While you’re using more detailed explanation, this is just another version of the same argument made by Chris Langan, and god knows how many people before him.

    More specifically, assuming the sequence of arguments are true (which are assumptions but not unworthy assumptions) this merely states that there are fundamental laws of deterministic behavior in this (or any) universe that result in some analogy to operational computation.

    In other words, yes, the universe very likely follows a fixed set of categories (entities), dimensions, and operations. In fact we have no evidence otherwise.

    But, any attempt to anthropomorphize this is just that: fictionalism (lying). One cannot testify to it.

    As such you could make the argument that the universe contains laws and that as such we can anthropomorphize the universe for human mental consumption. Which was one of the permutations I listed. But it is just a convenient fiction for providing false legitimacy to children and the dim, until they can master all the subsequent abstractions to make non-fictional claims and conclusions.

    There is no demand (outside the universe) for external organization of these rules since pressure, spin, polarity, harmonics and quanta that result, produce all resulting categories and operations. (which is precisely what I argue in our forthcoming book on the logic of evolutionary computation.). And there is no reason to imagine (see Wolfram) that any other set of rules would survive evolutionary computation. Those that exist are those that survive. It doesn’t appear that variations in pressure (energy) would alter those properties.

    So, assuming all the theorized physical processes you listed are correct, that conveys no truth value in any dimension on the claim of god.

    Reply addressees: @njalbertini

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-30 01:42:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873545139941195776

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873541458453533002

  • Harrari has to be the worst working historian with the worst agenda since Zinn a

    Harrari has to be the worst working historian with the worst agenda since Zinn and both are extensions of the Frankfurt school – and the entire cultural disposition to this framing is an application of middle eastern mythicism, and has nothing at all to do with european history…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-29 23:41:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873514788845928850

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873511253165154372

  • TYPICAL NAIVE ANALYSIS OF ANGLOSPHERE STRATEGY (WHITE MAN’S BURDEN) This is like

    TYPICAL NAIVE ANALYSIS OF ANGLOSPHERE STRATEGY (WHITE MAN’S BURDEN)
    https://slavlandchronicles.substack.com/p/why-does-washington-kill-the-puppet

    This is like saying why do humans develop mythology, theology, philosophy, empiricism, science, and operationalism?
    Or why do we teach arithmetic, then mathematics, then calculus, then…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-17 19:02:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869095865882951716

  • TYPICAL NAIVE ANALYSIS OF ANGLOSPHERE STRATEGY (WHITE MAN’S BURDEN) This is like

    TYPICAL NAIVE ANALYSIS OF ANGLOSPHERE STRATEGY (WHITE MAN’S BURDEN)
    https://t.co/SKr3FjxW9j

    This is like saying why do humans develop mythology, theology, philosophy, empiricism, science, and operationalism?
    Or why do we teach arithmetic, then mathematics, then calculus, then analysis.
    Or why do we develop imitative ethics, rule based ethics, or outcome based ethics?
    Or do we need kings, then nations, then armies, then rule of law, then markets, then participatory government?

    Because parenting primitives like parenting children requires what is necessary to produce the next stage of development.

    Otherwise the rest of the article discussing russian vs western behavior is what it is.

    Parenting is a costly but self defensive enterprise.

    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-17 19:02:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869095865715224576

  • Interesting. Are you making that up? Are you revising history? Are you making a

    Interesting. Are you making that up? Are you revising history? Are you making a statement about the natural consequences of any political-economic order as if they are particular to just those two? Have you learned so much about the enemy’s methods of mythicism that you have adopted them as your own despite our efforts to purge them? Because we have libraries of documentation about the history of oth strategies as maximization of good for additional classes of peoples.
    I have clearly failed to teach you the meaning of decidability as independent of subjective, and group subjective interest or preference. I’ve certainly failed to teach you the difference between the science of decidability and the application of that science – while you consistently and increasingly use semitic mythicism to justify your ambitions rather than simply accept the science and the application of to suit your preferences.
    I realize that this is my fault because I haven’t continued working with you deeply and consistently enough given that the work I’ve done with brad has consumed my time and effort and I cannot seem to make the two of you productive at the same time, nor can I toggle between two frames of reference at the same time and work with you on different topics.
    But regardless of fault, the consequences are as they are. In that you have motives that are rational for yourself and your polity and perhaps polities in proximity. And you cannot apparently frame your preferences and utilities as such and instead wish them universals (science) not a particular (philosophy). And I cannot seem to get you to adopt that frame when working with me or the group instead of attempting to counter or undermine our efforts at producing decidability under which yes. you may justify your ambitions as applications of that science of decidability.
    This is just a practical reality. That despite my love and admiration for you. Despite your extraordinary and rare ability. Despite your contributions, is becoming not an illustration of the applicability of the science as I have encouraged, but a demand to abandon science in favor of a philosophy.
    I try to let people grow on their own learn on their own and to own their conclusions on their own. But I try to given them (you) both counter-position and encouragement at the same time to prevent them from going sideways. And I am clearly failing in this case which is far more than disappointing because you have no peers of equal ability and my chances of finding others in what is left of my life are waning.

    Hugs
    CD

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-16 18:12:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868720780529614852

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868708810929668121