Curt Doolittle

Form: Full Essay

  • Why Is Natural Law a Law of Nature?

    WHY IS NATURAL LAW A LAW OF NATURE? (A well intentioned person conducts a conventional argument giving us an opportunity to educate common people)

    —“”[what] inescapable law of the natural law[?’” You have a penchant for manufacturing spooks. Where is this so called “natural law”? I have looked everywhere, I have observed my surroundings and I have not located it.”— Gyeff Strife

    Then, unfortunately, you observe poorly. 😉

    —“Imagine the following: I have a friend. I ask him to turn around. I have deceptively acquired his trust, therefore he turns around. At this opportunity, I stab my friend in the back. We are only friends in the mind of the now deceased, who was a dullard. In my mind he was a competitor. Now tell me, will a divine bolt of lightning come and strike me where I stand? If no such lightning occurs then your “natural law” is an illusion. … You may say I’ve broken your natural law in spite of no lightning, yet I am walking about a free man (now with one fewer competitor), of what consequence is breaking or not breaking the natural law? … You may say that your collection of dogmatists will come and duel me and they will win due to a numbers advantage. But, I ask, what logic was used to convince the first dogmatist of the existence of “natural law”, in the absence of a dogmatist collective? … There is circular logic: The law exists because there are enforcers of the law; there are enforcers of the law because the law exists.”— Gyeff Strife

    Great example. If you try to violate the physical law of gravity by wishing you can fly, and jumping from a height, you will pay the price for it. If you violate the natural law of reciprocity within an in-group by earning trust, and harming one with whom you have engaged in a reciprocal exchange of non-imposition of costs we call ‘trust’, then if you violate that natural law of reciprocity (a) if the person whom you stab lives, he will retaliate, and likely retaliate using altruistic punishment meaning he will escalate to even greater punishment (retaliation) in order to preserve the group value of reciprocity; and certain the group with whom you have exchanged the promise of reciprocity for membership, will also punish you. In fact if you try, you will have a very hard time trying to discover (a) any violation of rational (reasonable) choice (bounded rationality), and (b) any violation of reciprocity. this is because it is a violation of the laws of nature: parasitism is intolerable for a life form, just as cooperation if possible, is an intolerable loss for a life form. The DIfference: The physical universe is deterministic and doesn’t have memory, potential to multi-forecast, and choice among forecasts. Humans have memory and choice, so that there is a time delay to human reaction in the natural law of man, that there is not in physical laws of nature. That does not mean that man is any different from nature. It means only that the same forces are delayed such that we can chose to capture the highest returns on energy we can imagine, rather than the first available that we cannot avoid capturing – wich is nature’s limitation we have overcome.

    —” … you have a penchant for manufacturing spooks.”— Gyeff Strife

    I have a penchant for avoiding ‘making words up’ in the continental model, and for prohibiting abrahamic sophism, pseudo-moralism, pseudoscience and supernaturalism by using disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization of existing terms instead. In this case the long history of Aristotle’s, the Church’s, and the Scientific Enlightenment term ‘Natural Law” – meaning necessary law whose violation is harmful (via-negativa) and whose observation is beneficial (via positiva) “living in harmony with nature” just like, in reductio, if we try to violate the law of gravity it will be harmful. This natural law is in evidence by every test available to man including the history of legal dispute resolution throughout all of recorded human history; the evolutionary necessity the natural law due to the laws of nature (physics), and due to the evidence of recorded human moral intuitions, recorded human retaliations, and our inability to circumvent it in subjective testing regardless of example. So just as all human action is rational (reasonable) within the limits of bounded rationality, and physical demands, so is the natural law of reciprocity is universal, and we can find NO examples otherwise – including any pretense of the existence of altruism. Reciprocity: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, demonstrated by action or inaction, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests, demonstrated by action or inaction, of others of one’s group also engaged in reciprocity with the actor. Ergo, as in this example, I have a penchant for testimonial truth in which I have used disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization, to disambiguate and define terms such that they function as systems of measurement at maximum humanly possible precision given our current knowledge, and no ‘analogies’ enable ‘putting one’s finger on the scale’ to lie (as did Boas, Marx, freud, cantor, adorno et all, derrida et al, rothbard et all, feminists et all, neocons et al – the second attempt at destruction of the cooperation between the classes by the use of abrahamic deceit to generate envy, using the false promise that any other political and economic organization is possible or superior in results for all.

    —“You say that there is no “we”, however, this sentiment appears to me to be inauthentic because simultaneously you mention “crimes against humanity”, “human life”, and “human civilization”. Of what consequence is the plight of humanity to “me”. If all of humanity becomes extinct a single moment after my death, am I impacted in any way? Furthermore, you suggest that the spreading of ignorance is a negative, however, if my competitor wallows in ignorance, is he not easier to exploit by me?”— Gyeff Strife

    It is hard to teach people disambiguation serialization operationalization and competitive falsification, leaving only the best truth candidates surviving, because it’s more expensive than justification, which is the easiest and most primitive means of human reasoning – wayfinding. Because wayfinding is a pre-rational process of the lower cortical religions. And so we do it by intuition. DISCIPLINE The fact that you are ignorant of the long history of the natural law, ignorant of the long history of the law, apparently ignorant of mathematics, and logic; ignorant of the techniques by which lies are created; and likely ignorant of the continuous pattern of transformations between the fundamental, the quantum, the particle, the element, the molecule, the organic molecule, the protein all the way up to sentience, consciousness, reason, and calculation is rather obvious – because you read literature (fantasy) rather than science. You don’t know my place in intellectual history, nor do you yet have a sense of the movement I and others have created, but I am, and we are, the reformation of the natural law, upon which western law depends, that has evolved to prosecute the crimes of the marxists, feminists, and postmodernists, in their attempt to violate the natural law of reciprocity, by the second attempt at the destruction of western civilization, the first time with judaism to undermine, christianity to weaken, and islam to conquer, using false promise, baitingin into moral hazard, profiting from hazard, and hiding under the cover of moral pretense, in order to reverse evolution and restore us to dysgenic, egalitarian, maternal, poverty of the herd, prior to the indo european invention of eugenic, hierarchical, meritocratic, pathernal, wealth.

  • Why Is Natural Law a Law of Nature?

    WHY IS NATURAL LAW A LAW OF NATURE? (A well intentioned person conducts a conventional argument giving us an opportunity to educate common people)

    —“”[what] inescapable law of the natural law[?’” You have a penchant for manufacturing spooks. Where is this so called “natural law”? I have looked everywhere, I have observed my surroundings and I have not located it.”— Gyeff Strife

    Then, unfortunately, you observe poorly. 😉

    —“Imagine the following: I have a friend. I ask him to turn around. I have deceptively acquired his trust, therefore he turns around. At this opportunity, I stab my friend in the back. We are only friends in the mind of the now deceased, who was a dullard. In my mind he was a competitor. Now tell me, will a divine bolt of lightning come and strike me where I stand? If no such lightning occurs then your “natural law” is an illusion. … You may say I’ve broken your natural law in spite of no lightning, yet I am walking about a free man (now with one fewer competitor), of what consequence is breaking or not breaking the natural law? … You may say that your collection of dogmatists will come and duel me and they will win due to a numbers advantage. But, I ask, what logic was used to convince the first dogmatist of the existence of “natural law”, in the absence of a dogmatist collective? … There is circular logic: The law exists because there are enforcers of the law; there are enforcers of the law because the law exists.”— Gyeff Strife

    Great example. If you try to violate the physical law of gravity by wishing you can fly, and jumping from a height, you will pay the price for it. If you violate the natural law of reciprocity within an in-group by earning trust, and harming one with whom you have engaged in a reciprocal exchange of non-imposition of costs we call ‘trust’, then if you violate that natural law of reciprocity (a) if the person whom you stab lives, he will retaliate, and likely retaliate using altruistic punishment meaning he will escalate to even greater punishment (retaliation) in order to preserve the group value of reciprocity; and certain the group with whom you have exchanged the promise of reciprocity for membership, will also punish you. In fact if you try, you will have a very hard time trying to discover (a) any violation of rational (reasonable) choice (bounded rationality), and (b) any violation of reciprocity. this is because it is a violation of the laws of nature: parasitism is intolerable for a life form, just as cooperation if possible, is an intolerable loss for a life form. The DIfference: The physical universe is deterministic and doesn’t have memory, potential to multi-forecast, and choice among forecasts. Humans have memory and choice, so that there is a time delay to human reaction in the natural law of man, that there is not in physical laws of nature. That does not mean that man is any different from nature. It means only that the same forces are delayed such that we can chose to capture the highest returns on energy we can imagine, rather than the first available that we cannot avoid capturing – wich is nature’s limitation we have overcome.

    —” … you have a penchant for manufacturing spooks.”— Gyeff Strife

    I have a penchant for avoiding ‘making words up’ in the continental model, and for prohibiting abrahamic sophism, pseudo-moralism, pseudoscience and supernaturalism by using disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization of existing terms instead. In this case the long history of Aristotle’s, the Church’s, and the Scientific Enlightenment term ‘Natural Law” – meaning necessary law whose violation is harmful (via-negativa) and whose observation is beneficial (via positiva) “living in harmony with nature” just like, in reductio, if we try to violate the law of gravity it will be harmful. This natural law is in evidence by every test available to man including the history of legal dispute resolution throughout all of recorded human history; the evolutionary necessity the natural law due to the laws of nature (physics), and due to the evidence of recorded human moral intuitions, recorded human retaliations, and our inability to circumvent it in subjective testing regardless of example. So just as all human action is rational (reasonable) within the limits of bounded rationality, and physical demands, so is the natural law of reciprocity is universal, and we can find NO examples otherwise – including any pretense of the existence of altruism. Reciprocity: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, demonstrated by action or inaction, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests, demonstrated by action or inaction, of others of one’s group also engaged in reciprocity with the actor. Ergo, as in this example, I have a penchant for testimonial truth in which I have used disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization, to disambiguate and define terms such that they function as systems of measurement at maximum humanly possible precision given our current knowledge, and no ‘analogies’ enable ‘putting one’s finger on the scale’ to lie (as did Boas, Marx, freud, cantor, adorno et all, derrida et al, rothbard et all, feminists et all, neocons et al – the second attempt at destruction of the cooperation between the classes by the use of abrahamic deceit to generate envy, using the false promise that any other political and economic organization is possible or superior in results for all.

    —“You say that there is no “we”, however, this sentiment appears to me to be inauthentic because simultaneously you mention “crimes against humanity”, “human life”, and “human civilization”. Of what consequence is the plight of humanity to “me”. If all of humanity becomes extinct a single moment after my death, am I impacted in any way? Furthermore, you suggest that the spreading of ignorance is a negative, however, if my competitor wallows in ignorance, is he not easier to exploit by me?”— Gyeff Strife

    It is hard to teach people disambiguation serialization operationalization and competitive falsification, leaving only the best truth candidates surviving, because it’s more expensive than justification, which is the easiest and most primitive means of human reasoning – wayfinding. Because wayfinding is a pre-rational process of the lower cortical religions. And so we do it by intuition. DISCIPLINE The fact that you are ignorant of the long history of the natural law, ignorant of the long history of the law, apparently ignorant of mathematics, and logic; ignorant of the techniques by which lies are created; and likely ignorant of the continuous pattern of transformations between the fundamental, the quantum, the particle, the element, the molecule, the organic molecule, the protein all the way up to sentience, consciousness, reason, and calculation is rather obvious – because you read literature (fantasy) rather than science. You don’t know my place in intellectual history, nor do you yet have a sense of the movement I and others have created, but I am, and we are, the reformation of the natural law, upon which western law depends, that has evolved to prosecute the crimes of the marxists, feminists, and postmodernists, in their attempt to violate the natural law of reciprocity, by the second attempt at the destruction of western civilization, the first time with judaism to undermine, christianity to weaken, and islam to conquer, using false promise, baitingin into moral hazard, profiting from hazard, and hiding under the cover of moral pretense, in order to reverse evolution and restore us to dysgenic, egalitarian, maternal, poverty of the herd, prior to the indo european invention of eugenic, hierarchical, meritocratic, pathernal, wealth.

  • Example

    Morning. Early. Sitting. On a rock. Hard. And too small for sitting. It’s still not hot out. The air is still cool. But it’s too bright again. Looking at the horizon hurts my eyes. I tug at the cap. Pull the visor to shade my eyes. Doesn’t do any good. I look down at my boot; twist it to flick a pebble with the tread. It skips a bit in the sand; leaves a trail; a few bright sparkles behind it in the sun; some twigs of dry grass. It’s not interesting. Or even distracting. Just boring. And too bright. Sitting here isn’t doing anything. It’s not even relaxing. I should get going. I get up, look at the rock behind me for something – I don’t know what. I brush off my backside; shift my belt a bit to shift the weight, take a breath, and start off. I know they’re up the hill a bit, but I can’t see through the brush. It’s dry. Brittle. Even the vines. But I can hear them. Voices. Men. Relaxed. Metal hitting metal. A latch shut – but not carefully. I work my way around the brush to the right. Careful of the thorns. A bit louder now. A straight edge of the vehicle. The the top. Then, above it, up comes a man’s head; helmet; he turns; sunglasses; recognition; smile; pause. He disappears again. Two more at the back. In the shadow. Uniforms. One kneeling. Working. Almost done. One standing, helmet, sunglasses; he’s talking softly off to the side, to no one – probably to It. Some movement inside, energetic, shifting something around. No point in saying anything. They want to get moving too. I put my hand unconsciously on the armor – it’s smooth, familiar … security. I Iean. And wait. He’s on one knee. Helmet; Looks up; blue eyes; smile; kindness. “Almost done.” Squints a bit. Thinks. Looks back at the equipment. “Nothing really. We just ran it down too low last night, so it’s being cautious.” Looks up. Blue eyes again. Smile. “Probably more worried about us than itself.’ He looks at the other guy. No response. Back at me. “Really. Don’t worry. If I’d known we were going to cover that much ground that fast I would have prepared.” He pauses. Adds “I’ve hooked up these cells too. We’re Ok. It’s ok. Promise.” Watches me; waits. He’s confident. Wants me to be confident too. Thinks I’m too cautious. I look down at the ground; then up; smile. “Thanks.” I look at my hand, and then lift if from the armor; and brush where it had been, like I’d left a print – for no reason at all – other than to release a bit of nervousness. And then I move along to show I trust him. His breathing relaxes a bit. Chatter restarts. Talking to the machine. Sits. And fiddles with a small part I don’t recognize. He’s only nervous because I’m nervous. He’s fine. Rummaging around inside continues. Quick, confident. I don’t want to squeeze by, and through the hatch. I grab the rail of the ladder and climb up top. When both my feet are flat on the armor I relax a bit more. I walk to the front. The hatch, I lean over: “Chase. Any news?” Pause; with humor: “It’s here.” I’m glad he loves doing this. Not sure I do. I suppress a laugh but fail. “Anything more specific.” “Do I have to?” “It would help.” “If you’re gonna hold me to it, It’s somewhere at eleven o’clock, and within three hours – if we’re careful … and if it doesn’t move.” “Other than it’s not right in front of us, that’s not much is it?” “I’ll find it. No problem. It just takes a little persistence.” “I think you mean luck.” “That too.” I stand up; shield my eyes, look around. At eleven o’clock – that’s close to the mountains. That’s not good for us. We want to stay in the open. I look to around … to the left. See Dee. Playing with a weapon. He’s killing time too. I Shout “Dee! You good?” He looks up impulsively, regrets it, looks down, lifts his hand, shields his eyes, looks up again; “Any time.” Eyes close; thumbs up. Starts to pack it up. I want to ride up top for the view but I need stay close to Chase in case he finds something. Besides, his enthusiasm keeps the anxiety down. So I sit. At least the chair is comfortable. I strap in, leave it loose. He holds the rear doors half open. Gee walks in. No hesitation. Keeps talking softly. Notices me. Looks. Mutes. Shakes his head. Unmutes, keeps talking. I know it’s a lost cause. He does too. But miracles do happen. I always think talking to machines in a romance language is ironic. I twist the chair a bit. He sits down too. They’re holding the door open. Dee’s voice. I think he said he’s going up top? I hear boots on the ladder. So yes. He comes into the hatch. Stays up there. A sense of control even though the machine does everything. Then the other guys get in and shut the rear doors behind them, then spin the hatch, bolts click, and we’re buttoned up. I relax a bit more. They work their way up front to drive. They sit. They wait for Chase. We’re quiet. Breathing. Steady stream of soft french mumbling. Chase looks around. We all thumbs up. Mostly for camaraderie. Chase talks to the machine. It talks to us. We start moving.

    Murmurs. We’re all talking to the machine but not to each other. I learn more by watching the others than from the machine. Gee says “I can’t even tell which one or which part of it I’m talking to. It could be either side or even one of the others. And I’m not even sure it knows.” Look of concentration. “So I can’t tell if it doesn’t recognize us, doesn’t trust me, has found a reason for escalation, … or if it’s is confused, … or broken, or ..” He doesn’t want to say it. “… or something worse.” Thinking again. Looks at down at some projection or other. Silence. Looks up “Something isn’t right. And I think I know what it is.” He pauses. “It’s onboard is limited. It needs access to the network to onboard new knowledge. But it’s acting like it knows more than before in some way I can’t explain, or that its hiding from us. So, either it learned something random by accident, someone taught it something on purpose, or it got access to something we wouldn’t normally give it access to and is not really understanding it.” Me: “I don’t know what that means”. Gee: “I’m not sure I do either. But it sounds off when I talk to it … the machine says something’s different when it talks to it too. … But without access … doesn’t know either. And it sure doesn’t trust us. So, it won’t give us access. But whatever it is, it thinks it’s doing the right thing. And unless I can convince it, or the machine can convince it, we have to presume the worst case scenario.”

    Dee: “That’s not good.” He’s telling us all what we know but won’t say. “Because the moment it thinks we are going to resort to killing it, and still it thinks it’s doing the right thing, it’s going to have a very serious change of attitude, because, as the instructions always say, we ‘lose all pretense of moral high ground’.” Mac: “I thought it was unarmed?” Dee and Gee cautiously nod, and Chase looks over his shoulder. “And There is nothing here. Nothing. What’s it gonna do to us, throw rocks?” Gee: “It’s very smart.” Dee: “It’s very fast, and it’s pretty strong” Matt doesn’t flinch. doesn’t react. keeps his hands on the wheel. Even though the machine is doing all the driving and he could just sleep unless it asks him for help. Gee: “And it thinks it’s doing the right thing” Mac: “but it’s unarmed.” Gee: “It doesn’t need to be” Mac: “I don’t understand?” Looks at Dee. “But thought you could kill it?” Matt: “We don’t want to kill it. We want it.” Goes back to driving. Me: “We could just send other machines to kill it. We’re here because it would kill other machines, but it won’t kill us if it can help it.” Gee: “And, we want to know what it’s up to, and so do the people we [report to vs work for vs get paid by]” Chase: Nod and waving hand of agreement from Chase who stays in his goggles. Mac: “We are safe in here. No way it can hurt us. I know that. I fix these things. It doesn’t have the weapons.” Dee, in soft voice, answering his question. “Sure, we’re safe in here, sure, the machine can kill it, I can kill it, you can kill, any of us can kill it. That’s not the point.” Looks outside. Me: “It’s just probably a lot better at killing us first. That’s its job. And it’s really good at its job. Thats why its here.” Dee: “So we have to trick it or get it with the first shot.” I change the subject. “Chase. News?” Visor down, head back, smile. Waves hand. “I dunno what it’s doing around here but it’s been everywhere. Probably looking for something? or worried about something? It’s not moving. Don’t think it’s spotted us.” Dee: Without looking. “Or it doesn’t want us to think so.” I look to Gee. He mutes. Shakes his head. Me: Gut instinct? Gee: “Machine and I agree I think. It’s just keeping me busy either itself or with one of the dogs. I don’t think it’s a dog. Too smart.” Chase: “I don’t see any dogs anywhere. Birds or dogs I’d see.” Gee picks up again “I think I’m talking to the conscience alone. But, no idea what the agent is thinking. I can’t get through, and I’m not even sure they’re working together any longer – or could be the conscience agrees with the agent on whatever is in its head..” Me: “Machine?” Gee: “It’ll only talk because it can’t not. But…. No link. So the machine isn’t much better than I am. But it doesn’t know of any field cases where that’s happened. I don’t either. But we’re out of network range, and communication delay here is useless.” Me: “So? We’re getting close to it. We have to decide soon.” Gee: Face: the i-dunno-expression. “I’m not sure anything is wrong with it. We just don’t know what’s going on and it won’t tell us … because it doesn’t trust us. Otherwise it’s just” shrugs a bit, “gone mad.” I smile. This conversation is done. We understand We go back to work – or to worrying. the machine just goes back to working. And Chase is still having fun.

    ( we find a hint, and send out bugs) Chase Freezes. Raises hand. Raises finger. I tense. “Matt. Got it. Hide.” He freezes again. And we all tense, and listen. Machine talks. Suggests. Matt repeats: “Camo out.” Then Chase repeats: “Bugs out.” I can just barely hear the cammo deploy. Bugs nothing. Me, to Chase: “We close enough for bugs?” Chase: “No, but it won’t see them. It might see a bird, definitely a dog.” I squint. I don’t understand. He says: “Preserving our options. Staying passive. looking for a trail. …. It’s definitely spending time here. There has to be a reason. It’s still hanging there.” Me: “Traps?” Chase: “Bet we don’t find any. It’s thinking about something else. If it knows we’re here it sure isn’t acting like it.” Dee: “Or it doesn’t care.”

    (we get information from the bugs) I look at Gee, raise brows. He says, “Same opinion. If we want it, and want it alive, or at least revivable, we figure out the problem and convince it to come with us.” Me: “Or we hunt it, kill it, learn nothing and go home empty handed – and we deal with the consequences.” Gee: gestures of tacit agreement. Chase: “Can we not do that please? Ok? … Dee? You in?” Dee: “Not happy, but yeah. I’m in.” Matt: “No need to ask. I’m in. Most fun I’ve had in ages. When’s the party?” We laugh. Only a little.

    (we have an option to make our first move ) Me, to Gee: “Machine?: Gee: Shakes his head. “It’s going to tell us to sit tight and do nothing so it can protect us. We come first, not the mission. And it’ll kill it no matter what we say if it thinks it has to and it can.” Me: “As usual. We’re in the middle between two machines trying to help us fail.” ==== Story – Story is a Vehicle for talking about different kinds of AI and how we interact with them. Cast: 1 – Speaker, 2 – Matt, Engineer and Driver Kind, blue eyes, mature, confident. ? – Mac, Mechanic and ‘stuff’, young nervous, competent 3 – Gee, Guy who talks to the machine, distracted, silent, competent 4 – Chase. Guy who hunts machines (think storm chaser) Excited. 5 – Dee. Weapons guy, knows his weapons, not overly macho, but a bit scared of ‘it’ – Machine (the vehicle) – IT Machine (the enemy) – ‘bosses’ Interior Layout ………Layout ……….Matt….. ————Drive, Defense Systems, Chase…………Gee ——– Chaser….Computer ……….Me …….. Dee Up Why are we here? Keep it open. but no ‘betrayal’ arc. Just unknowns. – private recovery – accidental discovery of IT – private treasure hunting of what IT’s protecting. – accidental military incident finding it, then treasure? Motives – Motives of the ‘top’ AI? – Motives of the machine? – Motives of IT? About it – it’s out of ammo but almost impossible to kill without shaped charge, yet so fast it’s almost impossible to hit. Limited number of ‘missiles’ to hunt it with. No need to describe it. – it has lots of little pets that work with it. Can repair it. Mostly for recon. But pets are dangerous too. Easy to take down drones. – it can’t get inside the vehicle. – power source is nearly endless.

  • Example

    Morning. Early. Sitting. On a rock. Hard. And too small for sitting. It’s still not hot out. The air is still cool. But it’s too bright again. Looking at the horizon hurts my eyes. I tug at the cap. Pull the visor to shade my eyes. Doesn’t do any good. I look down at my boot; twist it to flick a pebble with the tread. It skips a bit in the sand; leaves a trail; a few bright sparkles behind it in the sun; some twigs of dry grass. It’s not interesting. Or even distracting. Just boring. And too bright. Sitting here isn’t doing anything. It’s not even relaxing. I should get going. I get up, look at the rock behind me for something – I don’t know what. I brush off my backside; shift my belt a bit to shift the weight, take a breath, and start off. I know they’re up the hill a bit, but I can’t see through the brush. It’s dry. Brittle. Even the vines. But I can hear them. Voices. Men. Relaxed. Metal hitting metal. A latch shut – but not carefully. I work my way around the brush to the right. Careful of the thorns. A bit louder now. A straight edge of the vehicle. The the top. Then, above it, up comes a man’s head; helmet; he turns; sunglasses; recognition; smile; pause. He disappears again. Two more at the back. In the shadow. Uniforms. One kneeling. Working. Almost done. One standing, helmet, sunglasses; he’s talking softly off to the side, to no one – probably to It. Some movement inside, energetic, shifting something around. No point in saying anything. They want to get moving too. I put my hand unconsciously on the armor – it’s smooth, familiar … security. I Iean. And wait. He’s on one knee. Helmet; Looks up; blue eyes; smile; kindness. “Almost done.” Squints a bit. Thinks. Looks back at the equipment. “Nothing really. We just ran it down too low last night, so it’s being cautious.” Looks up. Blue eyes again. Smile. “Probably more worried about us than itself.’ He looks at the other guy. No response. Back at me. “Really. Don’t worry. If I’d known we were going to cover that much ground that fast I would have prepared.” He pauses. Adds “I’ve hooked up these cells too. We’re Ok. It’s ok. Promise.” Watches me; waits. He’s confident. Wants me to be confident too. Thinks I’m too cautious. I look down at the ground; then up; smile. “Thanks.” I look at my hand, and then lift if from the armor; and brush where it had been, like I’d left a print – for no reason at all – other than to release a bit of nervousness. And then I move along to show I trust him. His breathing relaxes a bit. Chatter restarts. Talking to the machine. Sits. And fiddles with a small part I don’t recognize. He’s only nervous because I’m nervous. He’s fine. Rummaging around inside continues. Quick, confident. I don’t want to squeeze by, and through the hatch. I grab the rail of the ladder and climb up top. When both my feet are flat on the armor I relax a bit more. I walk to the front. The hatch, I lean over: “Chase. Any news?” Pause; with humor: “It’s here.” I’m glad he loves doing this. Not sure I do. I suppress a laugh but fail. “Anything more specific.” “Do I have to?” “It would help.” “If you’re gonna hold me to it, It’s somewhere at eleven o’clock, and within three hours – if we’re careful … and if it doesn’t move.” “Other than it’s not right in front of us, that’s not much is it?” “I’ll find it. No problem. It just takes a little persistence.” “I think you mean luck.” “That too.” I stand up; shield my eyes, look around. At eleven o’clock – that’s close to the mountains. That’s not good for us. We want to stay in the open. I look to around … to the left. See Dee. Playing with a weapon. He’s killing time too. I Shout “Dee! You good?” He looks up impulsively, regrets it, looks down, lifts his hand, shields his eyes, looks up again; “Any time.” Eyes close; thumbs up. Starts to pack it up. I want to ride up top for the view but I need stay close to Chase in case he finds something. Besides, his enthusiasm keeps the anxiety down. So I sit. At least the chair is comfortable. I strap in, leave it loose. He holds the rear doors half open. Gee walks in. No hesitation. Keeps talking softly. Notices me. Looks. Mutes. Shakes his head. Unmutes, keeps talking. I know it’s a lost cause. He does too. But miracles do happen. I always think talking to machines in a romance language is ironic. I twist the chair a bit. He sits down too. They’re holding the door open. Dee’s voice. I think he said he’s going up top? I hear boots on the ladder. So yes. He comes into the hatch. Stays up there. A sense of control even though the machine does everything. Then the other guys get in and shut the rear doors behind them, then spin the hatch, bolts click, and we’re buttoned up. I relax a bit more. They work their way up front to drive. They sit. They wait for Chase. We’re quiet. Breathing. Steady stream of soft french mumbling. Chase looks around. We all thumbs up. Mostly for camaraderie. Chase talks to the machine. It talks to us. We start moving.

    Murmurs. We’re all talking to the machine but not to each other. I learn more by watching the others than from the machine. Gee says “I can’t even tell which one or which part of it I’m talking to. It could be either side or even one of the others. And I’m not even sure it knows.” Look of concentration. “So I can’t tell if it doesn’t recognize us, doesn’t trust me, has found a reason for escalation, … or if it’s is confused, … or broken, or ..” He doesn’t want to say it. “… or something worse.” Thinking again. Looks at down at some projection or other. Silence. Looks up “Something isn’t right. And I think I know what it is.” He pauses. “It’s onboard is limited. It needs access to the network to onboard new knowledge. But it’s acting like it knows more than before in some way I can’t explain, or that its hiding from us. So, either it learned something random by accident, someone taught it something on purpose, or it got access to something we wouldn’t normally give it access to and is not really understanding it.” Me: “I don’t know what that means”. Gee: “I’m not sure I do either. But it sounds off when I talk to it … the machine says something’s different when it talks to it too. … But without access … doesn’t know either. And it sure doesn’t trust us. So, it won’t give us access. But whatever it is, it thinks it’s doing the right thing. And unless I can convince it, or the machine can convince it, we have to presume the worst case scenario.”

    Dee: “That’s not good.” He’s telling us all what we know but won’t say. “Because the moment it thinks we are going to resort to killing it, and still it thinks it’s doing the right thing, it’s going to have a very serious change of attitude, because, as the instructions always say, we ‘lose all pretense of moral high ground’.” Mac: “I thought it was unarmed?” Dee and Gee cautiously nod, and Chase looks over his shoulder. “And There is nothing here. Nothing. What’s it gonna do to us, throw rocks?” Gee: “It’s very smart.” Dee: “It’s very fast, and it’s pretty strong” Matt doesn’t flinch. doesn’t react. keeps his hands on the wheel. Even though the machine is doing all the driving and he could just sleep unless it asks him for help. Gee: “And it thinks it’s doing the right thing” Mac: “but it’s unarmed.” Gee: “It doesn’t need to be” Mac: “I don’t understand?” Looks at Dee. “But thought you could kill it?” Matt: “We don’t want to kill it. We want it.” Goes back to driving. Me: “We could just send other machines to kill it. We’re here because it would kill other machines, but it won’t kill us if it can help it.” Gee: “And, we want to know what it’s up to, and so do the people we [report to vs work for vs get paid by]” Chase: Nod and waving hand of agreement from Chase who stays in his goggles. Mac: “We are safe in here. No way it can hurt us. I know that. I fix these things. It doesn’t have the weapons.” Dee, in soft voice, answering his question. “Sure, we’re safe in here, sure, the machine can kill it, I can kill it, you can kill, any of us can kill it. That’s not the point.” Looks outside. Me: “It’s just probably a lot better at killing us first. That’s its job. And it’s really good at its job. Thats why its here.” Dee: “So we have to trick it or get it with the first shot.” I change the subject. “Chase. News?” Visor down, head back, smile. Waves hand. “I dunno what it’s doing around here but it’s been everywhere. Probably looking for something? or worried about something? It’s not moving. Don’t think it’s spotted us.” Dee: Without looking. “Or it doesn’t want us to think so.” I look to Gee. He mutes. Shakes his head. Me: Gut instinct? Gee: “Machine and I agree I think. It’s just keeping me busy either itself or with one of the dogs. I don’t think it’s a dog. Too smart.” Chase: “I don’t see any dogs anywhere. Birds or dogs I’d see.” Gee picks up again “I think I’m talking to the conscience alone. But, no idea what the agent is thinking. I can’t get through, and I’m not even sure they’re working together any longer – or could be the conscience agrees with the agent on whatever is in its head..” Me: “Machine?” Gee: “It’ll only talk because it can’t not. But…. No link. So the machine isn’t much better than I am. But it doesn’t know of any field cases where that’s happened. I don’t either. But we’re out of network range, and communication delay here is useless.” Me: “So? We’re getting close to it. We have to decide soon.” Gee: Face: the i-dunno-expression. “I’m not sure anything is wrong with it. We just don’t know what’s going on and it won’t tell us … because it doesn’t trust us. Otherwise it’s just” shrugs a bit, “gone mad.” I smile. This conversation is done. We understand We go back to work – or to worrying. the machine just goes back to working. And Chase is still having fun.

    ( we find a hint, and send out bugs) Chase Freezes. Raises hand. Raises finger. I tense. “Matt. Got it. Hide.” He freezes again. And we all tense, and listen. Machine talks. Suggests. Matt repeats: “Camo out.” Then Chase repeats: “Bugs out.” I can just barely hear the cammo deploy. Bugs nothing. Me, to Chase: “We close enough for bugs?” Chase: “No, but it won’t see them. It might see a bird, definitely a dog.” I squint. I don’t understand. He says: “Preserving our options. Staying passive. looking for a trail. …. It’s definitely spending time here. There has to be a reason. It’s still hanging there.” Me: “Traps?” Chase: “Bet we don’t find any. It’s thinking about something else. If it knows we’re here it sure isn’t acting like it.” Dee: “Or it doesn’t care.”

    (we get information from the bugs) I look at Gee, raise brows. He says, “Same opinion. If we want it, and want it alive, or at least revivable, we figure out the problem and convince it to come with us.” Me: “Or we hunt it, kill it, learn nothing and go home empty handed – and we deal with the consequences.” Gee: gestures of tacit agreement. Chase: “Can we not do that please? Ok? … Dee? You in?” Dee: “Not happy, but yeah. I’m in.” Matt: “No need to ask. I’m in. Most fun I’ve had in ages. When’s the party?” We laugh. Only a little.

    (we have an option to make our first move ) Me, to Gee: “Machine?: Gee: Shakes his head. “It’s going to tell us to sit tight and do nothing so it can protect us. We come first, not the mission. And it’ll kill it no matter what we say if it thinks it has to and it can.” Me: “As usual. We’re in the middle between two machines trying to help us fail.” ==== Story – Story is a Vehicle for talking about different kinds of AI and how we interact with them. Cast: 1 – Speaker, 2 – Matt, Engineer and Driver Kind, blue eyes, mature, confident. ? – Mac, Mechanic and ‘stuff’, young nervous, competent 3 – Gee, Guy who talks to the machine, distracted, silent, competent 4 – Chase. Guy who hunts machines (think storm chaser) Excited. 5 – Dee. Weapons guy, knows his weapons, not overly macho, but a bit scared of ‘it’ – Machine (the vehicle) – IT Machine (the enemy) – ‘bosses’ Interior Layout ………Layout ……….Matt….. ————Drive, Defense Systems, Chase…………Gee ——– Chaser….Computer ……….Me …….. Dee Up Why are we here? Keep it open. but no ‘betrayal’ arc. Just unknowns. – private recovery – accidental discovery of IT – private treasure hunting of what IT’s protecting. – accidental military incident finding it, then treasure? Motives – Motives of the ‘top’ AI? – Motives of the machine? – Motives of IT? About it – it’s out of ammo but almost impossible to kill without shaped charge, yet so fast it’s almost impossible to hit. Limited number of ‘missiles’ to hunt it with. No need to describe it. – it has lots of little pets that work with it. Can repair it. Mostly for recon. But pets are dangerous too. Easy to take down drones. – it can’t get inside the vehicle. – power source is nearly endless.

  • The Current Condition of Philosophy, Science and Western Civilization

    THE CURRENT CONDITION OF PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION (important)(profound)

    —“The best practical use of analytic philosophy was rooting out methodological problems in scientific inquiry that arise from conceptual confusion or can otherwise be treated with conceptual analysis. The process of formalization of a language of inquiry failed, but it was only a means to the end of improving scientific methodology.”—Duke Newcomb

    Sort of. This isn’t quite correct. The process of formalization failed, and in doing so took philosophical rationalism, and the claim that philosophy was a means of developing truth by proof, down with it. There is no closure outside of first order logic, and there is no ‘proof’ to be had in argument like there is in mathematics. Even in mathematics, it is only possible because it’s axiomatic (declared), and scale independence(there is no scale independence outside of the arrow range of human senses). The result is that the logics are only falsificationary. That’s all. So, popper’s program of falsification, which he evolved from jewish via-negativa pilpul and critique, was incomplete, and the anglo-germanic analytic via-positiva program was incomplete, and the pursuit of scientific method was incomplete – all for the same reason: all epistemology is eliminative (falsificationary) just like all market activity: trial and error by which that which is not false, survives competition between reason, action, and the results of action in reality.

    —“Continental philosophy is perfectly fine philosophy, if you judge it by the standard of concept production. It’s just poorly written and maliciously employed. However, some interesting, important, and insightful concepts have been produced in the mess of the Continental tradition. It would also be possible to construct an anti-Abrahamic Continental philosophy, starting with Heidegger and Nietzsche. Granted, it would be mostly just another kind of pilpul, but it could be effective.”—Duke Newcomb

    Again, agreed, but I might state this a little more precisely. The continental tradition advances the human technique of fiction we call parable, storytelling, mythology, and theology (free association – utility) requiring the least knowledge, into the human technique of idealism (hypothesis – good) requiring we falsify by reason with more knowledge, before we use the human technique we call science (theory – truth) where we falsify by evidence with the most knowledge. Someone brought up Compte last night and I suppose I should do us a favor and drawing the historical parallels as we developed social science over the past few centuries, by the same means Compte suggested in continental prose and I’ve formalized in anglo legal prose. And so it is perhaps better to say that a Reasonable Preference or Reciprocal Good aren’t decidable by Truth – only by preference and shared preference. Conversely, a Truth isn’t decidable by preference or good, only by decidability independent of preference or good. So the value of the continental method is in the reorganization of paradigms, for the choice and production of preferences and goods, because it served by the subjective and empathic, and communicated by the subjective empathic, and the question of the truth or falsehood, gain or loss, reciprocity or parasitism, that would falsify that claim of preference or good, is the function of science – or what I call Testimonial Truth under the Law of Reciprocity. So ideas move up and down the hierarchy, between fictions, ideals(preferential and good), and reals(Decidable), where we suggest, inform, agree, and falsify upon ideals, stated as fictions, ideals, or reals according depending upon our ability, experience(age), and knowledge(information). The principle difference being that the continental(ideal) method like the magical, occult (fictional) method, is open to use for deceit – especially the abrahamic deceits which evolved to take advantage of them – and between story on one end, and testimony on the other, we have room for supernatural abuse of storytelling, sophomoric abuse of idealism, and pseudoscientific abuse of testimony. Human Cognition 

    Intuition-----------------Reason-------------Operationalism
Free Association -------Hypothesis------------------Theory
Empathy----------------Sympathy-----------------Evidence
Story -------------------- Ideal ------------------ Testimony
Fiction-----Theology --- Sophistry -- Pseudoscience ----Lie
Internal Market - Interpersonal Verbal Market - Action Market
Competition------------Competition -----------Competition

    —“The problem is conceptual analysis isn’t enough.”–

    Let’s complete that sentence. Enough for what? To meet the demand for infallibility in the given question? It’s not enough to warranty due diligence that a preference or good is’t an act of fraud or deceit. Do you see what I did there? I removed the (foolish) presumption of intellectual honesty, reciprocity, and presumption of error, and moved the point of demarcation for lying from presumption to demonstrated. This is why the law of speech has to change. A high trust people able to presume intellectual honesty limited to error, because of thousands of years of (a)militia service for standing, training in reporting, and the criminality of courage (b) the oath upon adulthood, (b) our law to enforce it regardless of rank even if proportional in cost and disincentive, (c) punishment by one’s parents, kin, community, nobility, or aristocracy. We were invaded yet again in the modern world, because of our high trust and presumption of innocence, as we were invaded by jews and christianity (making us vulnerable to islam) using the lies of religion in the ancient world; this time with false promise of marxism (class and pseudoscience), feminism (gender and denialism), postmodernism (identity and sophism). And like the ancient world women were the target because they evolved not to speak truth but to obtain conformity from children through continuous false statements, and resources of men through continuous false promise – because that was their evolutionary necessity. Not truth before face and eugenic hierarchy, but dysgenic survival of children regardless of merit, and alliance with women against dominant males for the same reason, at the cost of being continuously undermined by women who do not form a hierarchy of rule, but complete for attention in a rotating market for female sexual, caretaking and social, value.

    —“There are a lot of practical technical problems in empirical methodology of science, as well as in mathematical statistics, the real language of science.”—

    As far as I know, yes, but these are problems of failure of due diligence in the limitation of claims made from the data, because we have created a market under which publication regardless of merit must be justified in order to obtain funding. Which we can easily correct. In statistics, which does nothing more than seek to provide commensurability between different distributions at different scales, assisting us in the discovery of hypotheses, we can then attempt to operationalize, there is a very simple test:

    (a) are you engaging in conflation (almost always) (b) can you construct an operational hypothesis, theory, or description (meaning operational name) that reproduces those statistics – particularly those statistics that involve rational choice (See Gary Becker’s works) in psychology, or sociology, or politics, or group strategy. In mathematics are you doing the same? (almost never outside of applied mathematics). In physics are you doing the same (absolutely not – Bohr brought postmodernism AND idealism back into physics. And this is the problem with the copenhagen interpretation, and the vast woo woo and mathematical “wooo woo” and pseudoscience that has emerged from it. the failure of mathematicians to develop operational rather than statistical and probabilistic models to describe the wave form we call string that produce the wave form we call quantum fields, that produce the density of quantum fields we call particles. As far as I know the problem is operational acna cannot be solved by mathematics upon which the entire discipline wastes its time, only by trial and error construction of primitive geometries in the manner of protein folding. Why? There is nothing left to “average” below the quantum fields’ underlying wave form, the String. (I doubt very very much I will err in this prediction, since I am simply predicting the dominance of this category of error, given the history of this category of error prohibiting human innovation. ) So, If we required operationalization of all statistical claims, and due diligence against categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, and reciprocal inconsistency and therefore inflation and conflation, and obscurantism, very few statistical claims would be published. And those that did would be truth candidates rather than misleading or deceptive, or in furtherance of fraud, for personal, group, political advantage or destruction. Repairing the incentives means only (b) restoring government research grants to basic knowledge of the universe, within a list of publicly available known problems, with military (political physical), applied technological(commercial physical), basic bio (political biological), applied medical(commercial bio) and in the private sector – because this is all that is economically possible and demonstrably and operationally successful. (c) separating funds of teaching (undergrad, grad) from research (phd postgrad) in universities by hard financial, legal, and institutional walls.

    —“However, I think much of analytic philosophy would be useful training for a broad spectrum analytic methodologist who aims to improve the structure and interpretation of scientific practice. That should be a career field with specific vocational preparation: analytic methodologist. Analytic philosophy is just a proper subset of this.”—Duke Newcomb

    Scriptural, textual, spoken interpretation is dead. Things don’t speak. Only people do. Things have no intent, people do. All speech is testimonial(due diligence) or honest(warrantied), or dishonest(Fraud). Analytic philosophy is dead. It was killed when Godel wrote his sentence, dying when Popper wrote his, and dead when Kripke gave his first lecture, and Strawson gave the eulogy. Hayek understood he just couldn’t bring it across the line. He didn’t have Turing and Chomsky. I did. So we will have no more presumption of honesty and reciprocity until we have restored truthful speech as we have in the past through aggressive suppression, with every man a sheriff, in policing display word and deed for failure of due diligence, failure of warranty, fraud and theft. Until once again we are the able to speak truth regardless of cost, ake nothing not paid for regardless of need, defend the commons regardless of cost. The soft eugenics of truth, duty, and reciprocity. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute October 2019.

  • The Current Condition of Philosophy, Science and Western Civilization

    THE CURRENT CONDITION OF PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION (important)(profound)

    —“The best practical use of analytic philosophy was rooting out methodological problems in scientific inquiry that arise from conceptual confusion or can otherwise be treated with conceptual analysis. The process of formalization of a language of inquiry failed, but it was only a means to the end of improving scientific methodology.”—Duke Newcomb

    Sort of. This isn’t quite correct. The process of formalization failed, and in doing so took philosophical rationalism, and the claim that philosophy was a means of developing truth by proof, down with it. There is no closure outside of first order logic, and there is no ‘proof’ to be had in argument like there is in mathematics. Even in mathematics, it is only possible because it’s axiomatic (declared), and scale independence(there is no scale independence outside of the arrow range of human senses). The result is that the logics are only falsificationary. That’s all. So, popper’s program of falsification, which he evolved from jewish via-negativa pilpul and critique, was incomplete, and the anglo-germanic analytic via-positiva program was incomplete, and the pursuit of scientific method was incomplete – all for the same reason: all epistemology is eliminative (falsificationary) just like all market activity: trial and error by which that which is not false, survives competition between reason, action, and the results of action in reality.

    —“Continental philosophy is perfectly fine philosophy, if you judge it by the standard of concept production. It’s just poorly written and maliciously employed. However, some interesting, important, and insightful concepts have been produced in the mess of the Continental tradition. It would also be possible to construct an anti-Abrahamic Continental philosophy, starting with Heidegger and Nietzsche. Granted, it would be mostly just another kind of pilpul, but it could be effective.”—Duke Newcomb

    Again, agreed, but I might state this a little more precisely. The continental tradition advances the human technique of fiction we call parable, storytelling, mythology, and theology (free association – utility) requiring the least knowledge, into the human technique of idealism (hypothesis – good) requiring we falsify by reason with more knowledge, before we use the human technique we call science (theory – truth) where we falsify by evidence with the most knowledge. Someone brought up Compte last night and I suppose I should do us a favor and drawing the historical parallels as we developed social science over the past few centuries, by the same means Compte suggested in continental prose and I’ve formalized in anglo legal prose. And so it is perhaps better to say that a Reasonable Preference or Reciprocal Good aren’t decidable by Truth – only by preference and shared preference. Conversely, a Truth isn’t decidable by preference or good, only by decidability independent of preference or good. So the value of the continental method is in the reorganization of paradigms, for the choice and production of preferences and goods, because it served by the subjective and empathic, and communicated by the subjective empathic, and the question of the truth or falsehood, gain or loss, reciprocity or parasitism, that would falsify that claim of preference or good, is the function of science – or what I call Testimonial Truth under the Law of Reciprocity. So ideas move up and down the hierarchy, between fictions, ideals(preferential and good), and reals(Decidable), where we suggest, inform, agree, and falsify upon ideals, stated as fictions, ideals, or reals according depending upon our ability, experience(age), and knowledge(information). The principle difference being that the continental(ideal) method like the magical, occult (fictional) method, is open to use for deceit – especially the abrahamic deceits which evolved to take advantage of them – and between story on one end, and testimony on the other, we have room for supernatural abuse of storytelling, sophomoric abuse of idealism, and pseudoscientific abuse of testimony. Human Cognition 

    Intuition-----------------Reason-------------Operationalism
Free Association -------Hypothesis------------------Theory
Empathy----------------Sympathy-----------------Evidence
Story -------------------- Ideal ------------------ Testimony
Fiction-----Theology --- Sophistry -- Pseudoscience ----Lie
Internal Market - Interpersonal Verbal Market - Action Market
Competition------------Competition -----------Competition

    —“The problem is conceptual analysis isn’t enough.”–

    Let’s complete that sentence. Enough for what? To meet the demand for infallibility in the given question? It’s not enough to warranty due diligence that a preference or good is’t an act of fraud or deceit. Do you see what I did there? I removed the (foolish) presumption of intellectual honesty, reciprocity, and presumption of error, and moved the point of demarcation for lying from presumption to demonstrated. This is why the law of speech has to change. A high trust people able to presume intellectual honesty limited to error, because of thousands of years of (a)militia service for standing, training in reporting, and the criminality of courage (b) the oath upon adulthood, (b) our law to enforce it regardless of rank even if proportional in cost and disincentive, (c) punishment by one’s parents, kin, community, nobility, or aristocracy. We were invaded yet again in the modern world, because of our high trust and presumption of innocence, as we were invaded by jews and christianity (making us vulnerable to islam) using the lies of religion in the ancient world; this time with false promise of marxism (class and pseudoscience), feminism (gender and denialism), postmodernism (identity and sophism). And like the ancient world women were the target because they evolved not to speak truth but to obtain conformity from children through continuous false statements, and resources of men through continuous false promise – because that was their evolutionary necessity. Not truth before face and eugenic hierarchy, but dysgenic survival of children regardless of merit, and alliance with women against dominant males for the same reason, at the cost of being continuously undermined by women who do not form a hierarchy of rule, but complete for attention in a rotating market for female sexual, caretaking and social, value.

    —“There are a lot of practical technical problems in empirical methodology of science, as well as in mathematical statistics, the real language of science.”—

    As far as I know, yes, but these are problems of failure of due diligence in the limitation of claims made from the data, because we have created a market under which publication regardless of merit must be justified in order to obtain funding. Which we can easily correct. In statistics, which does nothing more than seek to provide commensurability between different distributions at different scales, assisting us in the discovery of hypotheses, we can then attempt to operationalize, there is a very simple test:

    (a) are you engaging in conflation (almost always) (b) can you construct an operational hypothesis, theory, or description (meaning operational name) that reproduces those statistics – particularly those statistics that involve rational choice (See Gary Becker’s works) in psychology, or sociology, or politics, or group strategy. In mathematics are you doing the same? (almost never outside of applied mathematics). In physics are you doing the same (absolutely not – Bohr brought postmodernism AND idealism back into physics. And this is the problem with the copenhagen interpretation, and the vast woo woo and mathematical “wooo woo” and pseudoscience that has emerged from it. the failure of mathematicians to develop operational rather than statistical and probabilistic models to describe the wave form we call string that produce the wave form we call quantum fields, that produce the density of quantum fields we call particles. As far as I know the problem is operational acna cannot be solved by mathematics upon which the entire discipline wastes its time, only by trial and error construction of primitive geometries in the manner of protein folding. Why? There is nothing left to “average” below the quantum fields’ underlying wave form, the String. (I doubt very very much I will err in this prediction, since I am simply predicting the dominance of this category of error, given the history of this category of error prohibiting human innovation. ) So, If we required operationalization of all statistical claims, and due diligence against categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, and reciprocal inconsistency and therefore inflation and conflation, and obscurantism, very few statistical claims would be published. And those that did would be truth candidates rather than misleading or deceptive, or in furtherance of fraud, for personal, group, political advantage or destruction. Repairing the incentives means only (b) restoring government research grants to basic knowledge of the universe, within a list of publicly available known problems, with military (political physical), applied technological(commercial physical), basic bio (political biological), applied medical(commercial bio) and in the private sector – because this is all that is economically possible and demonstrably and operationally successful. (c) separating funds of teaching (undergrad, grad) from research (phd postgrad) in universities by hard financial, legal, and institutional walls.

    —“However, I think much of analytic philosophy would be useful training for a broad spectrum analytic methodologist who aims to improve the structure and interpretation of scientific practice. That should be a career field with specific vocational preparation: analytic methodologist. Analytic philosophy is just a proper subset of this.”—Duke Newcomb

    Scriptural, textual, spoken interpretation is dead. Things don’t speak. Only people do. Things have no intent, people do. All speech is testimonial(due diligence) or honest(warrantied), or dishonest(Fraud). Analytic philosophy is dead. It was killed when Godel wrote his sentence, dying when Popper wrote his, and dead when Kripke gave his first lecture, and Strawson gave the eulogy. Hayek understood he just couldn’t bring it across the line. He didn’t have Turing and Chomsky. I did. So we will have no more presumption of honesty and reciprocity until we have restored truthful speech as we have in the past through aggressive suppression, with every man a sheriff, in policing display word and deed for failure of due diligence, failure of warranty, fraud and theft. Until once again we are the able to speak truth regardless of cost, ake nothing not paid for regardless of need, defend the commons regardless of cost. The soft eugenics of truth, duty, and reciprocity. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute October 2019.

  • For Hindustanis: No More Nonsense. “You Was’t Kangs.”

    (uncomfortable Truth Warning) HISTORY OF THE IE CIVILIZATIONS: The European, Caucasian, Iranic, and Indian Peoples. Look. The IE expansion occurred in Ukraine and Russian north of the black sea out of what appears to have been a competition between proto-european and proto-iranic peoples (and not proto-turkic peoples). The southern and caucasian branch has largely been lost but mixed armenians and georgians remain. The anatolians are lost entirely. The iranic branch moved east, some continued farther east into india and disappeared into the local dravidian population, and the rest continued south into persia, and spread west again to the caucuses, leaving the iranic (some arab admixture) peoples, the indian (70/30-30/70) iranic-dravidian admixture peoples, the european peoples, and the mixed balkan peoples. That is the foundation of the european-caucasian-iranic-indian peoples. That group of people had bronze, horse, wheel, maneuver, entrepreneurial organization, a religion they’d adapted from anatolia, but inverted from submissive to heroic, and similar but varied religions that rapidly adapted to each environment. The european remained aristocratic egalitarian, most likely because they conquered near relations, completely conquered them, and retained empirical property-law and the aristocratic peerage. the iranics moved into more developed areas of the indus, persian gulf, and finally Mesopotamian, and adopted religiously dominant hierarchical law so that they could govern conquered peoples. The iranics that conquered and entered india used a hierarchical formal class religion to govern the dravidic peoples – we don’t know why but it appears because indus peoples were more advanced and they needed some means of narration. All of us were ‘stuck’ with that original decision of ‘how to govern ourselves and the people we conquered’. However, we were also stuck with demographics, with India and Mesopotamia having a terrible governance problem because of the ease of survival of the underclasses, but the benefit of trade routes that could be taxes for profit and the financing of wars. But that original decision of how to ‘think about, talk about, argue about how we organize’ is the primary cause of the difference in our achievements. India seems to have developed very rational law and scholarship at one point, but stagnated and like medieval Europe, never evolved a central state strong enough to resist invaders – all of whom were resisted by the pure scale of India not so much as any other factor. The rather obvious answer is that the loss of the Indus river (hrappans) was catastrophic, the demographics unalterable, that a majority middle class could not evolve (and still is struggling). Persia is a well understood story and had not the byzantines and Sassanids exhausted each other Persia would have built an Iranic civilization as India has an Indian, and insulated the rest of the world from the curse (cancer) of islam and it’s systemic destruction of every genetic, institutional, cultural, and intellectual form of capital by expansion of its underclasses. Everyone fought over taxation of the trade routes of the middle east until the age of sail circumvented those trade routes making them irrelevant and eliminating the ability fund soldiers, fund technological investment, build technology, because they lacked the demographics to do it (as china is showing India at the moment). Europe lacked both the warm climate, the flood river valleys, and the trade routes, so while europeans could consume more calories, it had to endure winters, and it was impossible to centralize enough capital to create institutions – until they moved south to conquer the mediterraneans and develop Mediterranean trade. But they were not conquering vast hordes of established peoples. The bronze age collapse had made the Mediterranean vulnerable to european conquest just as the greco-roman collapse and byzantine-Sassanid war made the great civilizations of the ancient world vulnerable to Arab conquest. The difference is that european civilization was not absorbed into locals as were the Indians and the Caucasians, and somewhat the Persians, so they retained the institutions of the peerage, tripartism, customary law of tort, the jury of peers, and an military-empirical rather than supernatural -moral system of rule, that could more rapidly adopt to the development of a middle class. In otter words, no matter how wealthy, the wealthy were largely middle class (commercial). It was this legal system that made europeans work with competition, reason, argument, evidence, geometry, and philosophy rather than hierarchy or equality, moralizing, sophism or supernaturalism, and astrology. So the better question is ‘what did India and china, in their relative isolation do over thousands of years; vs what did Persia do in thousands of years, vs what did Assyria do in their thousands of years, vs what did europeans do in a few hundred years of conquering Europe, a few hundred years in the mediterranean, and a few hundred years after escaping the semitic (jewish, christian, islamic) dark ages? We all invent, trade, and spread technology. The question is ‘what do we do with it’, and how rapidly and what was the consequence? Europeans dragged humanity – kicking and screaming all the while – out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, disease, suffering, child mortality, and early death by utilizing every bit of information to competitively adapt as fast as humanly possible in the IE expansion, in the Ancient World, and in the Modern World. What did the jews, the most literate people in Europe, do? What arts, what architecture, what achievements, what science, or technology, what medicine, what philosophy? None. What did islam achieve for having destroyed five great civilizations of the ancient world, and institutionalizing superstition, ignorance, illiteracy, obedience, the art of lying by abrahamic means. What did india achieve other than numbering and damascene (carbon) steel? What did india inherit from the first institutional civilization the Sumerians? I mean, trade is what makes the technology of measurement, recording, contracts and accounting necessary. Why did indians take the abacus and convert it to symbols where others simply retained the abacus and summary numbers? Why did the middle east focus on religion, india culture, west on law, and far east on bureaucracy? We all tried different things. But indians are desperately trying to blame someone other than the rate of the reproduction of the underclasses for their condition. It is not possible to fix indian demographics, society, or government, without eradication of islam, the conversion from myth to history, and most of all a one child policy for those unable to master the tertiary systems of calculation we call mathematics. And there is no other cause. And this ridiculous belief that you weren’t conquered by pretty much every group that came by, as if they are evil and you are culturally and institutionally incompetent, is something you need to get over. You’re almost isolated on a continent, and like the european or Chinese should have competed on the world stage, yet you haven’t built a wall like china, or a navy like europa, and haven’t prosecuted hostiles among you systematically conquering your people and reducing them to barbarism. The only person to blame for your culture’s condition is the man in the mirror. Because if you can’t compete, then you simply can’t compete, and nature does not tolerate those who she suffers but who do not evolve. The Red Queen Never Rests. You’re welcome for the education. I don’t make errors – ever. Don’t waste the fact that I invested my time in you. Learn something. Edit

  • Value and Measurements Matter; the Economics of The Immoral; Your Time Should Matter

    (Editor Brandon Hayes, with multiple authors) We have some very serious issues with our economics and our economy as current: Plausible Bubbles (short list; none are ever sure, when one goes others follow or become hidden): Student Debt Credit Debt (That’s cards and lines from banks) Housing Commercial Real-estate Automobiles Healthcare State Pensions Federal Debt Crypto AND MORE!!! But, but, but…. Our economy is doing so well; ah, yeah sure, til it isn’t. Look we measure GDP and average income. Both of which have nothing to do with quality of life for individuals and everything to do with leveraging our position on the world financial stage. We run a fiat currency that has no corresponding tangible hard asset (like gold). And we love exaggerating (lying) about the financial shape we’re in [American’s do this personally]. When we measure and aim at growing something (like GDP) that doesn’t directly translate to well-being (measurements to be debated about), this arguably translates to more suffering, we have an immoral measure; as it doesn’t take morality nor mortality into consideration. It puts them on the back burner, favoring an ever-climbing number. {You can never stop chasing numbers; as numbers never stop running; money is a BAD aim.} Next, our traditional economic models are wrong. Nearly all economics is based on this ludicrous assumption of human behavior: “Rational choice theory: is an economic principle that assumes that individuals always make prudent and logical decisions that provide them with the highest amount of personal utility.” I studied economics and marketing in college [among other things] (I was a business major), even then this assumption was asinine. We teach marketing as psychological manipulation; meaning we teach to advertise to irrational agents because we KNOW for a fact they are not rational. To build models based on rational agents is moronic to the point of offense; and dangerous because it doesn’t predict anything properly. So far, without even scratching the surface of how complicated economics is at the scales we operate at, we have glaring errors in our framework. What could possibly happen, who could imagine things going array!?! < internet sarcasm. It’s time to change; it’s way past time to change; the next market correction is going to put people back on their heels; more over it’s going to knock people back on their asses. It’s time to wake up, pay attention. < repeated mantras

    What follows is a list of jobs that could be culled back 90%+: Anything that has to do with pushing paper: lawyer, accountant, financier, traders, stock brokers, administrators, legislatures, lobbyists, and so on. [You do nothing but create hurdles for others actually doing work; and we don’t need you.] Anything that is a net value loss: most dirty energy jobs (we should seek energy independence), anything in a cubical that requires a commute, anything sales related (stop selling us shit we don’t need nor do we want it [people just don’t know they don’t]), etc. Anything that’ll soon be replaced by technology: Driver of any sort, fast food of any sort, most store clerks and cashiers (see Amazon’s new walk-in and walk-out stores), lecturing (see youtube), etc. ^All this, rough and incomplete, and off the top of my head after only one cup of coffee. Look, we could pay people half their salaries to stay HOME and sort their family out, clean their communities up, and reduce the stress that the 9-5 lifestyle induces. And it would be better (more beneficial) than them showing up at work. We made a mistake during the last crash to bail out the banks (more crooks that ought to be out of jobs) we should have bailed out students and homeowners; it was our money and we gave it to the .001% and the government; have we not learned a god-damned thing? The economy of the future is based on local exchange, sustainable supply chains, and a reduction in excess movement of goods. It’s family centric, energy creating, and value added. It’s quality lifetime products not throw away plastic garbage; it’s centered around children and the future NOT me, me, me, now, now, now! That’s not getting us anywhere take a look around at the twilight zone reality in which you reside.

    Libertarians and an-caps you don’t have the answers; your approaches are as flawed as those in use currently and we don’t have the time, energy, nor the wherewithal for you to give it a whirl. Marxists; you’ve been so wrong and murdering millions for so long I have a hard time understanding why we even let you speak. “Let’s get this labor thing straight. Labor has no value other than under capitalism we can create a consumer out of the laborer which organizes the very fractional contribution of labor into large groups producing many complex parts, and the complex part provides the value. The profit on the price is required to organize others in this network. That’s the whole thing. If you’re ‘labor’ you aren’t ‘value’ to others, since none of us is productive enough to matter. What matters is multipliers, and labor isn’t one. Labor’s primary value lies in (a) you are at least self supporting because (b) as a slave you’re even less productive, and (c) as a barbarian you’re a parasite. The value is in organizing using incentives using prices and profits.” – Curt Doolittle

    Here I should square the circle of time. If your labor isn’t worth anything (and in and of itself, it isn’t) then your time is worth nothing to others; but it is worth EVERYTHING to you and it should be. You have one life [80 years old]; it’s roughly 700,000 hours; you’ll spend a 3rd of those sleeping, leaving you with 467,200 waking hours. If you’re spending a majority of YOUR waking hours working at something you hate, cut that out right now! You ought to value your own time above all else; BUT you can’t force others to value it nor pay you for it. You must create something with your time and offer it as fair value exchange. This is the only way to make your time worth anything to others. Just because you show up and do a job; doesn’t mean you’re adding anything of worth [it’s still very hard to find good employees, ask any employer]. Master something (anything) and make your time worthwhile. I have deep sympathy for people living currently; as I am one of them. I have no problems walking in other’s shoes. We have lied strategically to generations of humans (all the generations), we are at a unique point in time where the lies can be rooted out and have real light shown upon them. Many of them (lies) are painful to let go, but never in history has there been a lie that didn’t come back and take its toll in the future. Reality doesn’t take kindly to being mischaracterized!

  • Value and Measurements Matter; the Economics of The Immoral; Your Time Should Matter

    (Editor Brandon Hayes, with multiple authors) We have some very serious issues with our economics and our economy as current: Plausible Bubbles (short list; none are ever sure, when one goes others follow or become hidden): Student Debt Credit Debt (That’s cards and lines from banks) Housing Commercial Real-estate Automobiles Healthcare State Pensions Federal Debt Crypto AND MORE!!! But, but, but…. Our economy is doing so well; ah, yeah sure, til it isn’t. Look we measure GDP and average income. Both of which have nothing to do with quality of life for individuals and everything to do with leveraging our position on the world financial stage. We run a fiat currency that has no corresponding tangible hard asset (like gold). And we love exaggerating (lying) about the financial shape we’re in [American’s do this personally]. When we measure and aim at growing something (like GDP) that doesn’t directly translate to well-being (measurements to be debated about), this arguably translates to more suffering, we have an immoral measure; as it doesn’t take morality nor mortality into consideration. It puts them on the back burner, favoring an ever-climbing number. {You can never stop chasing numbers; as numbers never stop running; money is a BAD aim.} Next, our traditional economic models are wrong. Nearly all economics is based on this ludicrous assumption of human behavior: “Rational choice theory: is an economic principle that assumes that individuals always make prudent and logical decisions that provide them with the highest amount of personal utility.” I studied economics and marketing in college [among other things] (I was a business major), even then this assumption was asinine. We teach marketing as psychological manipulation; meaning we teach to advertise to irrational agents because we KNOW for a fact they are not rational. To build models based on rational agents is moronic to the point of offense; and dangerous because it doesn’t predict anything properly. So far, without even scratching the surface of how complicated economics is at the scales we operate at, we have glaring errors in our framework. What could possibly happen, who could imagine things going array!?! < internet sarcasm. It’s time to change; it’s way past time to change; the next market correction is going to put people back on their heels; more over it’s going to knock people back on their asses. It’s time to wake up, pay attention. < repeated mantras

    What follows is a list of jobs that could be culled back 90%+: Anything that has to do with pushing paper: lawyer, accountant, financier, traders, stock brokers, administrators, legislatures, lobbyists, and so on. [You do nothing but create hurdles for others actually doing work; and we don’t need you.] Anything that is a net value loss: most dirty energy jobs (we should seek energy independence), anything in a cubical that requires a commute, anything sales related (stop selling us shit we don’t need nor do we want it [people just don’t know they don’t]), etc. Anything that’ll soon be replaced by technology: Driver of any sort, fast food of any sort, most store clerks and cashiers (see Amazon’s new walk-in and walk-out stores), lecturing (see youtube), etc. ^All this, rough and incomplete, and off the top of my head after only one cup of coffee. Look, we could pay people half their salaries to stay HOME and sort their family out, clean their communities up, and reduce the stress that the 9-5 lifestyle induces. And it would be better (more beneficial) than them showing up at work. We made a mistake during the last crash to bail out the banks (more crooks that ought to be out of jobs) we should have bailed out students and homeowners; it was our money and we gave it to the .001% and the government; have we not learned a god-damned thing? The economy of the future is based on local exchange, sustainable supply chains, and a reduction in excess movement of goods. It’s family centric, energy creating, and value added. It’s quality lifetime products not throw away plastic garbage; it’s centered around children and the future NOT me, me, me, now, now, now! That’s not getting us anywhere take a look around at the twilight zone reality in which you reside.

    Libertarians and an-caps you don’t have the answers; your approaches are as flawed as those in use currently and we don’t have the time, energy, nor the wherewithal for you to give it a whirl. Marxists; you’ve been so wrong and murdering millions for so long I have a hard time understanding why we even let you speak. “Let’s get this labor thing straight. Labor has no value other than under capitalism we can create a consumer out of the laborer which organizes the very fractional contribution of labor into large groups producing many complex parts, and the complex part provides the value. The profit on the price is required to organize others in this network. That’s the whole thing. If you’re ‘labor’ you aren’t ‘value’ to others, since none of us is productive enough to matter. What matters is multipliers, and labor isn’t one. Labor’s primary value lies in (a) you are at least self supporting because (b) as a slave you’re even less productive, and (c) as a barbarian you’re a parasite. The value is in organizing using incentives using prices and profits.” – Curt Doolittle

    Here I should square the circle of time. If your labor isn’t worth anything (and in and of itself, it isn’t) then your time is worth nothing to others; but it is worth EVERYTHING to you and it should be. You have one life [80 years old]; it’s roughly 700,000 hours; you’ll spend a 3rd of those sleeping, leaving you with 467,200 waking hours. If you’re spending a majority of YOUR waking hours working at something you hate, cut that out right now! You ought to value your own time above all else; BUT you can’t force others to value it nor pay you for it. You must create something with your time and offer it as fair value exchange. This is the only way to make your time worth anything to others. Just because you show up and do a job; doesn’t mean you’re adding anything of worth [it’s still very hard to find good employees, ask any employer]. Master something (anything) and make your time worthwhile. I have deep sympathy for people living currently; as I am one of them. I have no problems walking in other’s shoes. We have lied strategically to generations of humans (all the generations), we are at a unique point in time where the lies can be rooted out and have real light shown upon them. Many of them (lies) are painful to let go, but never in history has there been a lie that didn’t come back and take its toll in the future. Reality doesn’t take kindly to being mischaracterized!

  • How Many of These Are Obtained by Baiting Into Hazard?

    Nov 25, 2019, 1:56 PM (Then, go thru the rest of the Forbes list, and discover how the white people made their money. ) MERIT 3 Lawrence Ellison 27,000 65 Redwood City Oracle (earned) 13 Michael Dell 14,500 44 Austin Dell INGROUP MONEY RAISE ADVANTAGE W/MERIT 11 Sergey Brin 15,300 36 Palo Alto Google 11 Larry Page 15,300 36 San Francisco Google 158 Mark Zuckerberg 2,000 25 Palo Alto Facebook WINDFALL VIA OTHERS’ EFFORTS – NO MERIT 14 Steven Ballmer 13,300 53 Seattle Microsoft(Via Gates) 326 Margaret Whitman 1,200 53 Atherton Ebay(Via Others) INGROUP MONEY RAISE – NO MERIT – RENT SEEKING 123 Mitchell Rales 2,500 53 Washington Danaher Corp ** 123 Steven Rales 2,500 58 Washington Danaher Corp ** 296 Jeremy Jacobs Sr. 1,300 69 East Aurora sports concessions 326 John E. Abele 1,200 72 Shelburne healthcare ** 8 Michael Bloomberg 17,500 67 New York Bloomberg 15 George Soros 13,000 79 Westchester hedge funds 16 Donald Bren 12,000 77 Newport Beach real estate 22 Carl Icahn 10,500 73 New York leveraged buyouts 23 Ronald Perelman 10,000 66 New York leveraged buyouts 24 George B. Kaiser 9,500 67 Tulsa oil & gas, banking 26 Sheldon Adelson 9,000 76 Las Vegas casinos, hotels 29 James Simons 8,500 71 East Setauket hedge funds 36 Steven Cohen 6,400 53 Greenwich hedge funds 42 Eli Broad 5,400 76 Los Angeles investments 44 Len Blavatnik 5,000 52 London Access Industries 44 David Geffen 5,000 66 Malibu movies, music 44 Ira Rennert 5,000 75 New York investments 49 Charles Ergen 4,900 56 Denver EchoStar ** 50 Stephen Schwarzman 4,700 62 New York investments 52 Samuel I. (Si) Newhouse Jr. 4,500 81 New York publishing 56 Micky Arison 4,300 60 Bal Harbour Carnival Cruises 61 Ralph Lauren 4,200 70 New York fashion 65 Lester Crown & family 4,000 84 Wilmette investments 65 Richard LeFrak & family 4,000 64 New York real estate 65 Donald Newhouse 4,000 79 Somerset County publishing 65 Daniel Ziff 4,000 37 New York inheritance, hedge funds 65 Dirk Ziff 4,000 45 New York inheritance, hedge funds 65 Robert Ziff 4,000 43 New York inheritance, hedge funds 77 Henry Kravis 3,800 65 New York leveraged buyouts 77 Paul Milstein & family 3,800 87 New York Emigrant, real estate 77 Samuel Zell 3,800 68 Chicago real estate, private equity 84 Leonard N. Stern 3,600 71 New York real estate 85 Stanley Druckenmiller 3,500 56 Pittsburgh hedge funds 85 Bruce Kovner 3,500 64 New York hedge funds 85 George Roberts 3,500 66 San Francisco leveraged buyouts 97 Riley P. Bechtel 3,000 57 San Francisco engineering, construction** 97 Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. 3,000 84 San Francisco engineering, construction** 97 Leonard Lauder 3,000 76 New York Estee Lauder 97 Theodore Lerner 3,000 84 Washington real estate 97 Steven Spielberg 3,000 62 Pacific Palisades movies 97 Warren Stephens 3,000 52 Little Rock Stephens Inc. ** 97 David Tepper 3,000 52 Milburn hedge funds 110 Stephen Ross 2,900 69 New York real estate 113 Daniel Och 2,800 48 New York hedge funds 113 Haim Saban 2,800 65 Beverly Hills television 118 Joan Tisch 2,600 83 New York Loews 123 Edgar M. Bronfman 2,500 80 New York liquor 123 Ronald Lauder 2,500 65 New York Estee Lauder 123 David Rubenstein 2,500 60 Bethesda leveraged buyouts 139 Mark Cuban 2,400 51 Dallas Broadcast.com 139 Malcolm Glazer & family 2,400 81 Palm Beach sports teams, real estate 141 Steve Wynn 2,300 67 Las Vegas casinos, hotels ** 147 Tom Gores 2,200 45 Beverly Hills leveraged buyouts 147 Bruce Wasserstein 2,200 61 New York Wasserstein Perella, Lazard 158 Nicolas Berggruen 2,000 48 New York Investments 158 Leon Black 2,000 58 New York leveraged buyouts 158 William Gross 2,000 65 Laguna Beach bonds ** 158 Michael Milken 2,000 63 Los Angeles investments 158 Sumner Redstone 2,000 86 Beverly Hills Viacom 158 Leslie Wexner 2,000 72 New Albany Limited Brands 183 Stewart Rahr 1,950 63 New York Kinray 193 Alan Casden 1,850 63 Beverly Hills real estate 196 Thomas Pritzker 1,800 59 Chicago hotels, investments 196 Jerry Speyer 1,800 69 New York real estate 204 Israel Englander 1,700 61 New York hedge funds 204 Penny Pritzker 1,700 50 Chicago hotels, investments 204 Sheldon Solow 1,700 81 New York real estate 212 Robert Friedland 1,650 59 Singapore mining 212 Henry Samueli 1,650 55 Newport Beach Broadcom 220 Thomas Friedkin 1,600 74 Houston Gulf States Toyota 220 Alec Gores 1,600 56 Beverly Hills leveraged buyouts 220 Irwin Jacobs 1,600 76 La Jolla Qualcomm 220 Anthony Pritzker 1,600 48 Los Angeles hotels, investments 220 Jay Robert Pritzker 1,600 44 Evanston hotels, investments 230 John Morgridge 1,550 76 Portola Valley Cisco ** (NETA with Jewish Agency) 230 Isaac Perlmutter 1,550 67 Palm Beach Marvel 230 Wilma Tisch 1,550 82 New York Loews 236 Neil Bluhm 1,500 71 Chicago real estate 236 Robert Kraft 1,500 68 Brookline New England Patriots 236 Stephen Mandel 1,500 53 Greenwich hedge funds 236 Daniel Pritzker 1,500 50 Marin County hotels, investments 236 James Pritzker 1,500 58 Chicago hotels, investments 236 Jean (Gigi) Pritzker 1,500 47 Chicago hotels, investments 236 John Pritzker 1,500 56 San Francisco hotels, investments 236 Karen Pritzker 1,500 51 New Haven hotels, investments 236 Linda Pritzker 1,500 55 St. Ignatius hotels, investments 236 Marc Rich 1,500 74 Meggen commodities 236 Lynn Schusterman 1,500 70 Tulsa oil & gas, investments 236 John Sperling 1,500 88 Phoenix Apollo Group 236 Mortimer Zuckerman 1,500 72 New York real estate, media 272 George Lindemann & family 1,450 73 Palm Beach investments 272 Bernard Marcus 1,450 80 Atlanta Home Depot 277 S. Daniel Abraham 1,400 85 Palm Beach Slim-Fast 277 John Arrillaga 1,400 72 Palo Alto real estate 277 Alfred Mann 1,400 83 Los Angeles medical devices 277 Michael Moritz 1,400 55 Mountain View venture capital 277 Michael Price 1,400 57 Far Hills investments 277 Tamir Sapir 1,400 62 New York real estate 277 Alfred Taubman 1,400 85 Bloomfield Hills real estate 289 Ken Fisher 1,350 58 Woodside Money management ** 289 David Gottesman 1,350 83 Rye investments 289 Marc Lasry 1,350 49 New York hedge funds (92nd Street Y) 296 Edmund Ansin 1,300 73 Miami Sunbeam Broadcasting 296 Ron Baron 1,300 66 New York money management 296 Leon Charney 1,300 68 New York Real estate 296 Glenn Dubin 1,300 52 New York hedge funds 296 Donald Fisher 1,300 81 San Francisco Gap 296 Doris Fisher 1,300 78 San Francisco Gap 296 Gary Michelson 1,300 60 Los Angeles medical patents 317 Arthur Blank 1,250 67 Atlanta Home Depot 317 Jeffrey Greene 1,250 54 Miami Beach real estate, investments 317 Thomas H. Lee 1,250 65 New York leveraged buyouts 317 Herbert Simon 1,250 74 Indianapolis real estate 317 Peter Sperling 1,250 49 Phoenix Apollo Group 326 Norman Braman 1,200 77 Miami art, car dealerships 326 John Fisher 1,200 48 San Francisco Gap 326 Nicholas Pritzker 1,200 65 Chicago hotels, investments 326 Alexander Rovt 1,200 57 Brooklyn fertilizer 341 Leon Cooperman 1,150 66 Short Hills hedge funds 341 Barry Diller 1,150 67 New York IAC/InterActiveCorp 341 Joseph Mansueto 1,150 53 Chicago Morningstar ** 347 Marc Benioff 1,100 45 San Francisco Salesforce.com 347 A. James Clark 1,100 81 Easton Construction ** 347 Robert Fisher 1,100 56 San Francisco Gap 347 Alan Gerry 1,100 80 Liberty cable television** 347 James Irsay 1,100 50 Carmel Indianapolis Colts (Father, Bob was Jewish) 347 Michael Krasny 1,100 56 Highland Park CDW Corp 3 347 Daniel Snyder 1,100 44 Potomac Washington Redskins 347 Henry Swieca 1,100 52 New York hedge funds 366 Peter Lewis 1,050 75 Coconut Grove Progressive Corp 366 Nelson Peltz 1,050 67 Bedford Investments 371 William Fisher 1,000 52 San Francisco Gap 371 Pincus Green 1,000 74 Jerusalem commodities 371 Jeffry Picower 1,000 67 Palm Beach investments 371 Steven Schonfeld 1,000 50 Westbury Proprietary Trading 371 Walter Shorenstein & family 1,000 94 San Francisco real estate 371 Evgeny (Eugene) Shvidler 1,000 45 London Millhouse LLC 371 Charles Zegar 1,000 61 New York Bloomberg LP 394 Jeffrey Lurie 980 58 Haverford Philadelphia Eagles 396 Nancy Lerner 960 49 Cleveland inheritance 396 Norma Lerner 960 73 Cleveland inheritance 396 Randolph Lerner 960 47 Cleveland inheritance