Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Teaching is a talent

    Teaching is a talent, with a tiny bit of craftsmanship. You can’t teach a talent. You’ve got the talent or you don’t. Too many don’t. Teaching consists almost entirely of the Grammars (means of comparing, reasoning, calculating with different smantics (terms) and operators (operations) in complete sentences (transactions),) and history (evidence, data). Answering synthetic questions when a teaching requires life experience, and knowledge of multiple grammars, and human history. Ergo, the only people suitable for answering questions are grandparents. The only defense against undermining intergenerational transfer of debt obligations (culture) is teachers who are grandparents. I wouldn’t let anyone teach anything above fourth grade that hadn’t had life experience in productive endeavors (no govt, ppl for ex.). Too much stupid out there. Too much ignorant out there. Too much GSRRM out there. THere is no reason we don’t teach mindfulness, ethics, the law, accounting, and micro economics, and social economy, history, and geogrpahy other than to undermine our civilizatoin by producing ignorant post-religoius

  • Operationalizing an Argument for The Preservation of Malinvestment in Priors

    OPERATIONALIZING AN ARGUMENT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF MALINVESTMENT IN PRIORS (example of faith or other desirable false beliefs)

    —“My solution is values testing. Which turns out to be epistemology testing. Meaning being downstream from epistemology, and values are downstream from meaning. The semiotic link between concept, word and thing cannot be broken in empiricism. Redefinition of terms that you see in certain critiques doesn’t negate the original concept; rather it creates a void to be filled by a new word, or rejection of the modified definition. Test for empiricism. “— Andrew M Gilmour

    I am sure that makes some sort of sense to you but I can’t translate it into truthful speech. So lets operationalize it and see what happens: “My solution to (some problem or other) consists in testing (some kind of, category of, some individual or group’s) values. Truthful statements require knowledge individuals don’t possess, cannot obtain, cannot ford to obtain, or are unwilling to obtain, so they substitute (whatever set of constant relations between senses, associations with objects, contexts, locations, and valued returns) is within their memories (experience and therefore meaning). The individual’s association between the constant relations produced by some mark, display, word or action, and cumulative prior associations currently in memory (concept), are not falsified or replaced or informed by evidence (experience) accumulated using physical and logical instrumentation we use to test our sense perception, free association, and reason, and to falsify, confirm, or evolve those same associations (categories). The use of Operational Language, wherein each sequential action whether physical, rational, or logical, is subjectively testable, does nothing to reorganize collections of constant relations (concepts), and the paradigms upon which those prior and new associations depend by the same means of cumulative associations. Instead (some individual, some people, some group) will always attempt to defend the newly falsified, confirmed, revised topic so that it remains unchanged, and instead, (whomever) will seek to preserve (whomever’s) investment in existing paradigms (constant relations, theories, narratives), by finding and fitting a new set of constant relations, and name them, into his previous paradigms, rather than reform his paradigms. This is because (some reason or other) people do not want to learn but preserve their paradigms regardless of how completely they are falsified. The reason is that for some reason, some percentage of the population seeks the psychological comfort of some paradigm over the more parsimonious (truthful) paradigm.” Well, you just described the reason for choosing not to learn because of the addiction to faith, or not learning because of addiction to some other means of preserving psychological self image or social status or pretense of sexual, social, economic, political, military market value, that is counter to competitive reality. When under all but physically developmental illnesses, cognitive behavioral therapy under care can correct every known one of them. I also agree that this is the definition of mental illness. And I also agree this is the dominant position of the excessively empathic (feminine) mind when in a condition of vulnerability.)

  • Set Math, Operations, and Quantum Mechanics

    SET MATH, OPERATIONS, AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

    —“I suspect because in set theory and calculus infinities are the bleeding edge of the discipline, in the same way that paradoxes are the bleeding edge of logics and, to put it more operationally, black holes are the bleeding edge of astrophysics. That makes them the more interesting structures of analysis for participants. It’s an artifact of human psychology and its natural salience ranking.”–Duke Newcomb

    Sure. They’re the bleeding edges in post sense-perception phenomenon, and a misapplication of that method of investigation within sense- perception-phenomenon. 😉 Just as logic is only falsificationary within simple verbal and conceptual terms, and operations within simple actable terms, and empiricism within post-actionable terms, so what you’re really saying is the bleeding edge of the application of mathematical physics to questions that re not solvable with mathematical physics. 😉 It’s how we claim something is a science via positiva. Except they have it backwards. testimony is the top of the epistemological pyramid and everything else – every other system of calculation no matter how we perform it before reducing it to subjectively testiable differences in constant relations. For example, as far as I know the reason we’re blocked at the quantum level with particle-wave duality is because we haven’t an operational geometric model for the representation of front of the wave (particle location) in some underlying geometric form. So, for example, We did get Minsky to make the point that operational logic was a new method of thought; we got chomsky to sort of make the loose expression of continuous recursive disambiguation – I’m not really sure (I think not) that he understood or understand the implications – that all speech is falsificationary (disambiguation: carving away stone of ambiguity, not building with clay of meaning). And we did get Mandelbrot to demonstrate it with post-human-computability; And we did get Wolfram out there trying (poorly) to achieve it in mathematics, and biologists trying to achieve it in protein folding. But I have yet to see anyone trying use operations, and geometry, to explain how tetrahedrons (the smallest possible three dimensional set of fields) can rearrange in some combination that produces charged strings of tetrahedrons in some combination, that would in fact explain the wave particle duality. I have on the other hand seen people discuss it but they’re trying mathematically instead of learning from Turing, Mandelbrot, and Wolfrom that ‘averages’ produce in formula do not produce forking states other than ‘string’s (waves of changes in state through a network of tetrahedrons) that in turn would produce both waves and momentary particles. Now this is rather obvious to me as an operationalist, but every time you get someone talking about quantum mechanics they’re using averages which cannot express causes only consequences. String theory does not require 11 dimensions, it requires some underlying structure in which forces accumulate into 11 axis of causation (positive or negative charge or pressure) dependent upon the possible means of organizing a network of three dimensionally constrained charges. Lisi’s work is interesting because he’s identified the problem of the charges missing, but it might simply be that those combinations are’t possible to construct with available organizations of the underlying tetrahedrons (or some other triangular shape, even if they are circular charges that can only be arranged in triangular relations etc. Circles (spheres) of charges also solve the problem of three dimensions, the tetrahedral (or hexagonal or whatever) organization of the charges may only be an effect of the directions of spin. Whatever the underlying geometry is we already know it’s set expression (quantum fields) but we do not know its existential expression – geometry and operations possible on geometry. And as far as I know we can’t possibly measure such a thing so the only way of coming up with it is finding some set of geometric relations that through a limited grammar of possible organization, either temporary or consistent, produce what we call strings, which constitute the charged (altered) state of the underlying geometry, which we observe as a probability distribution in quantum mechanics, and which as a consequence of our ignorance is preventing us from explaining the relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity – I suspect, because, we are looking for particles or fields that produce gravity when instead, it’s just distortion of the underlying geometry, in which there is no evidentiary change expressed in detectable particles because all gravity is the negative expression of charges that distort the underlying geometry. ANd it is very hard to think like this if you have had your entire cognitive structure trained to think of sets (verbal averages), and mathematics (verbal averages) rather than geometry(reality).

  • Set Math, Operations, and Quantum Mechanics

    SET MATH, OPERATIONS, AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

    —“I suspect because in set theory and calculus infinities are the bleeding edge of the discipline, in the same way that paradoxes are the bleeding edge of logics and, to put it more operationally, black holes are the bleeding edge of astrophysics. That makes them the more interesting structures of analysis for participants. It’s an artifact of human psychology and its natural salience ranking.”–Duke Newcomb

    Sure. They’re the bleeding edges in post sense-perception phenomenon, and a misapplication of that method of investigation within sense- perception-phenomenon. 😉 Just as logic is only falsificationary within simple verbal and conceptual terms, and operations within simple actable terms, and empiricism within post-actionable terms, so what you’re really saying is the bleeding edge of the application of mathematical physics to questions that re not solvable with mathematical physics. 😉 It’s how we claim something is a science via positiva. Except they have it backwards. testimony is the top of the epistemological pyramid and everything else – every other system of calculation no matter how we perform it before reducing it to subjectively testiable differences in constant relations. For example, as far as I know the reason we’re blocked at the quantum level with particle-wave duality is because we haven’t an operational geometric model for the representation of front of the wave (particle location) in some underlying geometric form. So, for example, We did get Minsky to make the point that operational logic was a new method of thought; we got chomsky to sort of make the loose expression of continuous recursive disambiguation – I’m not really sure (I think not) that he understood or understand the implications – that all speech is falsificationary (disambiguation: carving away stone of ambiguity, not building with clay of meaning). And we did get Mandelbrot to demonstrate it with post-human-computability; And we did get Wolfram out there trying (poorly) to achieve it in mathematics, and biologists trying to achieve it in protein folding. But I have yet to see anyone trying use operations, and geometry, to explain how tetrahedrons (the smallest possible three dimensional set of fields) can rearrange in some combination that produces charged strings of tetrahedrons in some combination, that would in fact explain the wave particle duality. I have on the other hand seen people discuss it but they’re trying mathematically instead of learning from Turing, Mandelbrot, and Wolfrom that ‘averages’ produce in formula do not produce forking states other than ‘string’s (waves of changes in state through a network of tetrahedrons) that in turn would produce both waves and momentary particles. Now this is rather obvious to me as an operationalist, but every time you get someone talking about quantum mechanics they’re using averages which cannot express causes only consequences. String theory does not require 11 dimensions, it requires some underlying structure in which forces accumulate into 11 axis of causation (positive or negative charge or pressure) dependent upon the possible means of organizing a network of three dimensionally constrained charges. Lisi’s work is interesting because he’s identified the problem of the charges missing, but it might simply be that those combinations are’t possible to construct with available organizations of the underlying tetrahedrons (or some other triangular shape, even if they are circular charges that can only be arranged in triangular relations etc. Circles (spheres) of charges also solve the problem of three dimensions, the tetrahedral (or hexagonal or whatever) organization of the charges may only be an effect of the directions of spin. Whatever the underlying geometry is we already know it’s set expression (quantum fields) but we do not know its existential expression – geometry and operations possible on geometry. And as far as I know we can’t possibly measure such a thing so the only way of coming up with it is finding some set of geometric relations that through a limited grammar of possible organization, either temporary or consistent, produce what we call strings, which constitute the charged (altered) state of the underlying geometry, which we observe as a probability distribution in quantum mechanics, and which as a consequence of our ignorance is preventing us from explaining the relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity – I suspect, because, we are looking for particles or fields that produce gravity when instead, it’s just distortion of the underlying geometry, in which there is no evidentiary change expressed in detectable particles because all gravity is the negative expression of charges that distort the underlying geometry. ANd it is very hard to think like this if you have had your entire cognitive structure trained to think of sets (verbal averages), and mathematics (verbal averages) rather than geometry(reality).

  • The Problem of Left Egalitarian Thought

    THE PROBLEM OF LEFT EGALITARIAN THOUGHT

    —“That is the problem with the egalitarian program in a state of post-industrial revolution production. A uniform level of income distribution is unnecessary in order for everyone to have an adequate level of consumption for necessary goods. I think the naive intuition of the leftist is that any hierarchy built based on relative performance in the market is illegitimate and must be based on exploitation. This is to deny the existence of human capital, in spite of the fact that many leftists spend years at university to develop their personal human capital. (Ah, the internal contradictions of Marxism!) This dissonance, of course, leads them to propose schemes that focus on redistributivity, like tax and transfer payments, that reduce the effectiveness of the competition for luxury consumption and the efficiency-producing decision-making hierarchies that result from them. This creates malinvestment or, even worse, an insufficient level of capital production and deployment. This is a dangerous, immediate evil that rightists must combat. On this score, the white right is quite right.”—Duke Newcomb

  • The Problem of Left Egalitarian Thought

    THE PROBLEM OF LEFT EGALITARIAN THOUGHT

    —“That is the problem with the egalitarian program in a state of post-industrial revolution production. A uniform level of income distribution is unnecessary in order for everyone to have an adequate level of consumption for necessary goods. I think the naive intuition of the leftist is that any hierarchy built based on relative performance in the market is illegitimate and must be based on exploitation. This is to deny the existence of human capital, in spite of the fact that many leftists spend years at university to develop their personal human capital. (Ah, the internal contradictions of Marxism!) This dissonance, of course, leads them to propose schemes that focus on redistributivity, like tax and transfer payments, that reduce the effectiveness of the competition for luxury consumption and the efficiency-producing decision-making hierarchies that result from them. This creates malinvestment or, even worse, an insufficient level of capital production and deployment. This is a dangerous, immediate evil that rightists must combat. On this score, the white right is quite right.”—Duke Newcomb

  • Duke Newcomb Explains Decidability

    DUKE NEWCOMB EXPLAINS DECIDABILITY by Duke Newcomb (important) This notion of decidability, as you say, strikes me as one of your most important contributions. By decidability, I take it you mean a diffuse decision architecture that allows people at various levels to make decisions that are consistent with the intent of the program. It is a kind of information architectonics. If you could develop a geometry for decidability, that REALLY allows for analytically testing which notions are decidable by the human agent before deployment, THAT is the pathway to power. Or at least part of it. It doesn’t do the work of building an organization. You have to do that with ideas, influence, charisma, &tc. But once you have an organization and a defined and consistent decidability architecture you can quickly transform organization into institution. And those economy of scale efficiency gains (everyone doing their right proper part rowing the boat) would allow you to outcompete institutional rivals. I think I’m starting to see the core logic of your analytic system. It is this Darwinian metaphor for selection of information that Dawkins uses. By invoking this kind of post-Popperian notion of falsification as key lever of the epistemology, you are using competitive falsification as an evolutionary selection mechanism to get to better phenotypes of truth. How progressive! Basically, you aim to create multilayered sieves for truth out of all of these different layers of thought: geometry, philosophy, law, economics; with each doing its part to. Operational analysis as sieving process. T he biggest problem I see is that each of these disciplines is at different levels of technical maturity. Many disciplines are in a pre-Copernican Revolution state, so they’re immature and will give you variable performance. I suppose the best you can do is put more mature disciplines at more fundamental levels so they do more of the work filtering out falsehoods and the less mature disciplines, like economics, can just kind of pick the fat off the bones. (OMG. Thank you. yes. Thats far better than I can say it. -CD )

  • Duke Newcomb Explains Decidability

    DUKE NEWCOMB EXPLAINS DECIDABILITY by Duke Newcomb (important) This notion of decidability, as you say, strikes me as one of your most important contributions. By decidability, I take it you mean a diffuse decision architecture that allows people at various levels to make decisions that are consistent with the intent of the program. It is a kind of information architectonics. If you could develop a geometry for decidability, that REALLY allows for analytically testing which notions are decidable by the human agent before deployment, THAT is the pathway to power. Or at least part of it. It doesn’t do the work of building an organization. You have to do that with ideas, influence, charisma, &tc. But once you have an organization and a defined and consistent decidability architecture you can quickly transform organization into institution. And those economy of scale efficiency gains (everyone doing their right proper part rowing the boat) would allow you to outcompete institutional rivals. I think I’m starting to see the core logic of your analytic system. It is this Darwinian metaphor for selection of information that Dawkins uses. By invoking this kind of post-Popperian notion of falsification as key lever of the epistemology, you are using competitive falsification as an evolutionary selection mechanism to get to better phenotypes of truth. How progressive! Basically, you aim to create multilayered sieves for truth out of all of these different layers of thought: geometry, philosophy, law, economics; with each doing its part to. Operational analysis as sieving process. T he biggest problem I see is that each of these disciplines is at different levels of technical maturity. Many disciplines are in a pre-Copernican Revolution state, so they’re immature and will give you variable performance. I suppose the best you can do is put more mature disciplines at more fundamental levels so they do more of the work filtering out falsehoods and the less mature disciplines, like economics, can just kind of pick the fat off the bones. (OMG. Thank you. yes. Thats far better than I can say it. -CD )

  • The Economics of Consumption Has Replaced Morality in Politics,

    The economics of consumption has replaced morality in politics, but it is possible to restore consumption-with-tests-of-changes-in-the-state-of-capital possible under commodity money, localized capital, regional markets, and social homogeneity and abandon simple volume of consumption under conditions of paper money, social heterogeneity, world capital, and worldwide markets, thereby ending hyperconsumption, including of genetic, social, institutional, cultural and civilizational capital. In other words we lost the ability to test the changes in civilizational capital, by failing to measure them as trade moved from regional to national to civilizational to world scope – and in doing so our failure to include measurements of, and tools for measuring, human, cultural, institutional, genetic, etc capital was exposed and exploited, just as was our local tolerance for information stated with european law norm, christian values, and aristotelian reason. I keep saying this but the problem of the 20th was a failure of our institutions to produce systems of measurement and incentives to defend capital in parallel with the commercial and monetary expansion. The beauty of the western common law under which the first court finding that resolves a dispute over an innovation in means of irreciprocity, is that it responds the fastest to inventions of irreciprocity forcing us to continually innovate in means of competition under reciprocity. The problem is that our law failed to modernize particularly in two areas (1) measurement of the very capital that provides our civilizational means of competition (human , informal institutional and formal institutional capital), and (2) expanding our law to cover innovations in deception for the purpose of irreciprocity and obscuring that very capital consumption, made possible by the industrialization of false speech, and the reformation of abrahamic supernaturalism, sophism and denial, into abrahamic pseudoscience sophism and denial: marxism, boazianism, freudianism, feminism, postmodernism, and political correctness: denialism. We aren’t unique. It destroyed every empire i know of. Because what is accumulated rent seeking other than a failure to measure all capital transformation, and to create new incentives under the law to suppress newly available forms of parasitism that consume rather than produce human capital. All civilizations collapse because they have exhausted the capital available to use in the reorganization of a pareto distribution of influences, and a nash equilibrium of rewards for preserving that new system of organization, in response to scarcities, shocks, changes in trade routes, conflcit, war (Physical, Ideological, religious, economic), and variations in the environment (drought, climate, water and river changes, continuous quakes, world volcanic activity – which aside from very large asteroids is the most dangerous of all.

  • The Economics of Consumption Has Replaced Morality in Politics,

    The economics of consumption has replaced morality in politics, but it is possible to restore consumption-with-tests-of-changes-in-the-state-of-capital possible under commodity money, localized capital, regional markets, and social homogeneity and abandon simple volume of consumption under conditions of paper money, social heterogeneity, world capital, and worldwide markets, thereby ending hyperconsumption, including of genetic, social, institutional, cultural and civilizational capital. In other words we lost the ability to test the changes in civilizational capital, by failing to measure them as trade moved from regional to national to civilizational to world scope – and in doing so our failure to include measurements of, and tools for measuring, human, cultural, institutional, genetic, etc capital was exposed and exploited, just as was our local tolerance for information stated with european law norm, christian values, and aristotelian reason. I keep saying this but the problem of the 20th was a failure of our institutions to produce systems of measurement and incentives to defend capital in parallel with the commercial and monetary expansion. The beauty of the western common law under which the first court finding that resolves a dispute over an innovation in means of irreciprocity, is that it responds the fastest to inventions of irreciprocity forcing us to continually innovate in means of competition under reciprocity. The problem is that our law failed to modernize particularly in two areas (1) measurement of the very capital that provides our civilizational means of competition (human , informal institutional and formal institutional capital), and (2) expanding our law to cover innovations in deception for the purpose of irreciprocity and obscuring that very capital consumption, made possible by the industrialization of false speech, and the reformation of abrahamic supernaturalism, sophism and denial, into abrahamic pseudoscience sophism and denial: marxism, boazianism, freudianism, feminism, postmodernism, and political correctness: denialism. We aren’t unique. It destroyed every empire i know of. Because what is accumulated rent seeking other than a failure to measure all capital transformation, and to create new incentives under the law to suppress newly available forms of parasitism that consume rather than produce human capital. All civilizations collapse because they have exhausted the capital available to use in the reorganization of a pareto distribution of influences, and a nash equilibrium of rewards for preserving that new system of organization, in response to scarcities, shocks, changes in trade routes, conflcit, war (Physical, Ideological, religious, economic), and variations in the environment (drought, climate, water and river changes, continuous quakes, world volcanic activity – which aside from very large asteroids is the most dangerous of all.