Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Religion and The Sects

    Apr 25, 2020, 8:59 PM Religion combines wisdom literature, rituals, and social assembly to create personal, interpersonal, social, and political mindfulness with of a system of intuitive, coherent measurement, that relieves the pre-consious brain of stress about status, conflict, and uncertainty. We gain the elation of the primitive animal running with, hunting, feasting, resting, and safety within the pack (herd). Narratives (stories) using archetypes (expressions of instincts) are the most imprecise but universal and easily understood system of measurement. Christianity works. Religion works. Institutions, traditions, laws, and norms work. For the same reason: error elimination on one hand, and norm creation on the other, together which reduce cognitive load, which reduce stress, which maintains self image, which maintains status in interacting with others. Of the christian sects it appears that we find the best of something in each group. In evangelical protestantism we find the closest to Jesus’ teachings. In orthodoxy we find the preservation of tradition, and nationalism. In Catholicism we find an attempt at an intellectual and philosophical expansion of the underlying theology. In secular christianity we find the completion of the christian evolution into the via negativa natural law AND via positiva christian love. I can quite easily explain what we find as failing in each of those traditions – most of which result in (a) universalism (b) failure to accommodate the fundamental, ritualistic-traditional, phiosophical-moral, and scientific spectrum – and worse, a failure to integrate and retain our martial gods and their teachings – that saved us in the real world when christianity failed. I admit when I’m wrong all the time. I make many mistakes (irrelevant) but I err (relevant) very infrequently. Not because I am special but because the P-method makes it very, very, difficult to err.

  • Religion and The Sects

    Apr 25, 2020, 8:59 PM Religion combines wisdom literature, rituals, and social assembly to create personal, interpersonal, social, and political mindfulness with of a system of intuitive, coherent measurement, that relieves the pre-consious brain of stress about status, conflict, and uncertainty. We gain the elation of the primitive animal running with, hunting, feasting, resting, and safety within the pack (herd). Narratives (stories) using archetypes (expressions of instincts) are the most imprecise but universal and easily understood system of measurement. Christianity works. Religion works. Institutions, traditions, laws, and norms work. For the same reason: error elimination on one hand, and norm creation on the other, together which reduce cognitive load, which reduce stress, which maintains self image, which maintains status in interacting with others. Of the christian sects it appears that we find the best of something in each group. In evangelical protestantism we find the closest to Jesus’ teachings. In orthodoxy we find the preservation of tradition, and nationalism. In Catholicism we find an attempt at an intellectual and philosophical expansion of the underlying theology. In secular christianity we find the completion of the christian evolution into the via negativa natural law AND via positiva christian love. I can quite easily explain what we find as failing in each of those traditions – most of which result in (a) universalism (b) failure to accommodate the fundamental, ritualistic-traditional, phiosophical-moral, and scientific spectrum – and worse, a failure to integrate and retain our martial gods and their teachings – that saved us in the real world when christianity failed. I admit when I’m wrong all the time. I make many mistakes (irrelevant) but I err (relevant) very infrequently. Not because I am special but because the P-method makes it very, very, difficult to err.

  • How to Counter Chinese Chest Beating

    —“USA independence: 1783 AD, Han dynasty: 206 BC–220 AD. can you do the math?”—金田ホトトギス @goldfieldcuckoo

    I can. And I can ask you, if china is surrounded by mountains, desert and ocean, and if china is so far away from Mesopotamia, Persia, and Islam, how did you manage to fail with so much time in so much safety? We began in 1500bc near ukraine and settled in poland, and spread in all directions from there. We had a dark age in 1200 bc to 800bc that destroyed the entire civilized world. Between 700bc and 300ad, in just four hundred years, the greeks invented politics, geometry, reason, science, the Antikythera, and the steam engine. Were it not for accidents we could have had the industrial revolution within two centuries. Next, we suffered the Jewish-Christian and Islamic Dark Age – and you didn’t. But again, we saved ourselves, and in just 600 years, explored and connected the world by trade, invented the calculus and all advanced mathematics, the logics, all the physical sciences, the social sciences, all technology, all medicine, and took man into space, and raised you out of ignorance, poverty, starvation and disease. You started in 2500bc. We started in 1500bc. So you had a THOUSAND YEARS in prehistory. We didn’t catch up until 800ad. We were viable from 800bc-100ad and were invaded. We had a dark age from 400ad-1400ad. You another THOUSAND YEARS in the middle ages. Why did you fail? (I know) You failed because Chinese people are ‘petty’, like women. You do face-before-truth, like women. Your pride is easily offended like women. You delay and deceive because you fear conflict like women. You feel the need for power instead of reciprocity – like women. You don’t trust – like women. You cheat – like women. You lie like women. Why? It’s genetic. You have low T. You hyper-evolved submissiveness and over-extended Neoteny. You are a nation of status conscious petty women, who must have consensus because you lack the honor and truth to negotiate compromise. This is why your plans to rule the world will fail. No one else has the knowledge or courage to say the truth to you. It is bad manners for my people to tell you this truth. The difference between races is the degree of neoteny and the sex-direction of it. Africans low neoteny high masculine. Chinese high neoteny, high feminine. Europeans are in the middle. Jews are medium neoteny high feminine very eugenic. Muslims are medium neoteny, feminine, very dysgenic. This is why you fail. You desire harmony. Harmony is the instinct of women. You are weak because you need consensus. You are slow because you need consensus and authority. We don’t care any longer. We learned our lesson this time Mankind is unfit for peerage. We need only ‘build a wall’ to keep out the barbarians. So there is no race to win with you. The only race is to godhood. And we have a very great advantage. Because we speak the truth. Because we have courage to do so. Because we are men.

  • How to Counter Chinese Chest Beating

    —“USA independence: 1783 AD, Han dynasty: 206 BC–220 AD. can you do the math?”—金田ホトトギス @goldfieldcuckoo

    I can. And I can ask you, if china is surrounded by mountains, desert and ocean, and if china is so far away from Mesopotamia, Persia, and Islam, how did you manage to fail with so much time in so much safety? We began in 1500bc near ukraine and settled in poland, and spread in all directions from there. We had a dark age in 1200 bc to 800bc that destroyed the entire civilized world. Between 700bc and 300ad, in just four hundred years, the greeks invented politics, geometry, reason, science, the Antikythera, and the steam engine. Were it not for accidents we could have had the industrial revolution within two centuries. Next, we suffered the Jewish-Christian and Islamic Dark Age – and you didn’t. But again, we saved ourselves, and in just 600 years, explored and connected the world by trade, invented the calculus and all advanced mathematics, the logics, all the physical sciences, the social sciences, all technology, all medicine, and took man into space, and raised you out of ignorance, poverty, starvation and disease. You started in 2500bc. We started in 1500bc. So you had a THOUSAND YEARS in prehistory. We didn’t catch up until 800ad. We were viable from 800bc-100ad and were invaded. We had a dark age from 400ad-1400ad. You another THOUSAND YEARS in the middle ages. Why did you fail? (I know) You failed because Chinese people are ‘petty’, like women. You do face-before-truth, like women. Your pride is easily offended like women. You delay and deceive because you fear conflict like women. You feel the need for power instead of reciprocity – like women. You don’t trust – like women. You cheat – like women. You lie like women. Why? It’s genetic. You have low T. You hyper-evolved submissiveness and over-extended Neoteny. You are a nation of status conscious petty women, who must have consensus because you lack the honor and truth to negotiate compromise. This is why your plans to rule the world will fail. No one else has the knowledge or courage to say the truth to you. It is bad manners for my people to tell you this truth. The difference between races is the degree of neoteny and the sex-direction of it. Africans low neoteny high masculine. Chinese high neoteny, high feminine. Europeans are in the middle. Jews are medium neoteny high feminine very eugenic. Muslims are medium neoteny, feminine, very dysgenic. This is why you fail. You desire harmony. Harmony is the instinct of women. You are weak because you need consensus. You are slow because you need consensus and authority. We don’t care any longer. We learned our lesson this time Mankind is unfit for peerage. We need only ‘build a wall’ to keep out the barbarians. So there is no race to win with you. The only race is to godhood. And we have a very great advantage. Because we speak the truth. Because we have courage to do so. Because we are men.

  • The Hardware Problem Limiting AI

    Apr 28, 2020, 9:44 AM Yep. The problem is the entire industry is built for central computation limited by frequency (heat) rather than distributed association and prediction limited only by numbers(cool) – and what we need is billions of trivial circuits whose primary difference from neurons(really dendrites-synapses) is in creating many local logical (addresses) rather than physical (dendritic-synaptic) connections, storing trivial (sparse) bits of memory in sequences. In addition the context (episode) creates an index in time AND space and each fragment of information is locally co-associated with those positions. Every neuron, micro-column, macro-column, region of the brain is trivially simple, but in concert they produce in parallel what cannot be done by increasing frequency(and heat). Graphics processors are architected for parallel processing and so we ‘hijacked’ them in the 2000’s for AI use. And since the human brain uses triangles and hexagons for producing its world model, the graphics processor does solve HALF of the underlying problem: the neocortex is a doubling (folding over) with six layers, of the entorhinal cortex (three layers), dividing the responsibility of identity (top) and relative position (bottom), with the outputs passed forward in the cognitive hierarchy in a vast market competition for coherence. So it’s not that we don’t (at least now, because this is all recent knowledge) know how to create general intelligence (I certainly do). Its that (as turing said) we built the machines for math (top down) instead of thinking (bottom up) with math as merely one of the grammars (logics) resulting from it. So the current issue as I understand it, is that we cannot achieve in software what we need hardware for. So we need a manhattan project to produce thinking machines only because the industry is constructed for the opposite aim, and current (primitive) neural networks can categorize but only do so with vast amounts of information and manual tuning. In this illustration from the attached web page, we see the limit of what current AI is able to do: categorize, and only after lots of training and tuning. This means application specific hardware because the hardware is constructed ‘incorrectly’ still for the task of general intelligence. Conversely there are many functions where we do not want a general intelligence – which exchanges increase in possibility of error for decrease in cost of adaptation. Robots are dangerous because they’re not intelligent, but there are many cases where not-intelligent danger, and intelligent danger are a trade off. So we have market demand for (a) simple software problems (b) application specific ai problems, and (c) general ai problems.’  

  • The Hardware Problem Limiting AI

    Apr 28, 2020, 9:44 AM Yep. The problem is the entire industry is built for central computation limited by frequency (heat) rather than distributed association and prediction limited only by numbers(cool) – and what we need is billions of trivial circuits whose primary difference from neurons(really dendrites-synapses) is in creating many local logical (addresses) rather than physical (dendritic-synaptic) connections, storing trivial (sparse) bits of memory in sequences. In addition the context (episode) creates an index in time AND space and each fragment of information is locally co-associated with those positions. Every neuron, micro-column, macro-column, region of the brain is trivially simple, but in concert they produce in parallel what cannot be done by increasing frequency(and heat). Graphics processors are architected for parallel processing and so we ‘hijacked’ them in the 2000’s for AI use. And since the human brain uses triangles and hexagons for producing its world model, the graphics processor does solve HALF of the underlying problem: the neocortex is a doubling (folding over) with six layers, of the entorhinal cortex (three layers), dividing the responsibility of identity (top) and relative position (bottom), with the outputs passed forward in the cognitive hierarchy in a vast market competition for coherence. So it’s not that we don’t (at least now, because this is all recent knowledge) know how to create general intelligence (I certainly do). Its that (as turing said) we built the machines for math (top down) instead of thinking (bottom up) with math as merely one of the grammars (logics) resulting from it. So the current issue as I understand it, is that we cannot achieve in software what we need hardware for. So we need a manhattan project to produce thinking machines only because the industry is constructed for the opposite aim, and current (primitive) neural networks can categorize but only do so with vast amounts of information and manual tuning. In this illustration from the attached web page, we see the limit of what current AI is able to do: categorize, and only after lots of training and tuning. This means application specific hardware because the hardware is constructed ‘incorrectly’ still for the task of general intelligence. Conversely there are many functions where we do not want a general intelligence – which exchanges increase in possibility of error for decrease in cost of adaptation. Robots are dangerous because they’re not intelligent, but there are many cases where not-intelligent danger, and intelligent danger are a trade off. So we have market demand for (a) simple software problems (b) application specific ai problems, and (c) general ai problems.’  

  • When Will the Masses Accept Propertarianism?

    Apr 28, 2020, 10:51 AM P not a belief system. The masses can not “convert to P”, it doesn’t work like that. How then will P change the world? P is a technology and like all other technologies it goes through phases of development and adoption. In the early phases every technology borders on useless. The first computers (and robots) were rare and complex limited use toys seen by only a handful of dedicated specialists and understood by even less. Computing had lots of early dead ends much the same way that we have discovered dead ends in libertarianism or religion. As the technology matured and became more complex (and useful), computers turned into expensive, massive machines that required teams of experts to design, assemble and run. In 1943 Thomas Watson, president of IBM, famously said “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” One of the biggest experts in the emerging field of computing got it wrong. Why? Because he was judging the technology based on its merits in 1943. As computers evolved so did the market and demand for them yet the underestimating of the power of computers never ended. In 1977 Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation said “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Again, a ridiculous statement in retrospect, but reasonable when looking at what computers offered in 1977. It takes many expensive and time consuming iterations for a technology to mature enough that average people can understand it, let alone use it or gain value from it. “640K ought to be enough for anybody.” – Bill Gates, 1981. Another wrong prediction by an expert looking at a technology in its infancy. “Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet’s continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.” – Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995 Could you have predicted the future of the internet in 1995? If the elites could have predicted that a free speech platform would eat their precious newspapers and news networks, forever eliminating the gatekeepers do you think they would have let it keep developing? No one, not me, not Curt, not you, none of us can predict how P will be used in 20 years or its effects on society and I am thankful for that. If the elites knew what we were doing they would have made sure Curt (and maybe a few of you) disappeared a long time ago. Not knowing what’s going to happen is scary if you lack self confidence in your ability to evolve and overcome. Predictions and dreaming about a P future of mass adoption are distractions that don’t move us forward. The power of P will grow at exactly the rate and in the direction that its underlying technologies are growing, no faster, no slower. They will grow in the direct of producing the most value for the people investing in them. Markets in all things. P is at the place where computing was in 1981. Just starting to be useful for people who didn’t dedicate their lives to developing the technology and attracting the pioneers who would take it to the masses. Soon we will see the emergence of the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of P. People who can make applications for P that appeal to the masses. If you want to see P having more of an effect on the world you must do more than follow along and experiment. As Curt works out the underlying technology we must start producing and SELLING solutions. Take the underlying technology and make something out of it that solves a problem for the masses. Sell it, profit and reinvest in R&D. Today everyone walks around with a powerful super computer in their pocket. They use it to do things Thomas Watson would have never imagined in 1943. We can not predict the applications that will bring P to the market and the masses. We must try many things and double down on what’s working. Get out and be creative. Embrace the opportunity in this chaos. In P we don’t predict the future. We make the future.

  • When Will the Masses Accept Propertarianism?

    Apr 28, 2020, 10:51 AM P not a belief system. The masses can not “convert to P”, it doesn’t work like that. How then will P change the world? P is a technology and like all other technologies it goes through phases of development and adoption. In the early phases every technology borders on useless. The first computers (and robots) were rare and complex limited use toys seen by only a handful of dedicated specialists and understood by even less. Computing had lots of early dead ends much the same way that we have discovered dead ends in libertarianism or religion. As the technology matured and became more complex (and useful), computers turned into expensive, massive machines that required teams of experts to design, assemble and run. In 1943 Thomas Watson, president of IBM, famously said “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” One of the biggest experts in the emerging field of computing got it wrong. Why? Because he was judging the technology based on its merits in 1943. As computers evolved so did the market and demand for them yet the underestimating of the power of computers never ended. In 1977 Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation said “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Again, a ridiculous statement in retrospect, but reasonable when looking at what computers offered in 1977. It takes many expensive and time consuming iterations for a technology to mature enough that average people can understand it, let alone use it or gain value from it. “640K ought to be enough for anybody.” – Bill Gates, 1981. Another wrong prediction by an expert looking at a technology in its infancy. “Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet’s continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.” – Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995 Could you have predicted the future of the internet in 1995? If the elites could have predicted that a free speech platform would eat their precious newspapers and news networks, forever eliminating the gatekeepers do you think they would have let it keep developing? No one, not me, not Curt, not you, none of us can predict how P will be used in 20 years or its effects on society and I am thankful for that. If the elites knew what we were doing they would have made sure Curt (and maybe a few of you) disappeared a long time ago. Not knowing what’s going to happen is scary if you lack self confidence in your ability to evolve and overcome. Predictions and dreaming about a P future of mass adoption are distractions that don’t move us forward. The power of P will grow at exactly the rate and in the direction that its underlying technologies are growing, no faster, no slower. They will grow in the direct of producing the most value for the people investing in them. Markets in all things. P is at the place where computing was in 1981. Just starting to be useful for people who didn’t dedicate their lives to developing the technology and attracting the pioneers who would take it to the masses. Soon we will see the emergence of the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of P. People who can make applications for P that appeal to the masses. If you want to see P having more of an effect on the world you must do more than follow along and experiment. As Curt works out the underlying technology we must start producing and SELLING solutions. Take the underlying technology and make something out of it that solves a problem for the masses. Sell it, profit and reinvest in R&D. Today everyone walks around with a powerful super computer in their pocket. They use it to do things Thomas Watson would have never imagined in 1943. We can not predict the applications that will bring P to the market and the masses. We must try many things and double down on what’s working. Get out and be creative. Embrace the opportunity in this chaos. In P we don’t predict the future. We make the future.

  • The Feet of Clay (stagnation)

    Apr 29, 2020, 11:15 AM by Bjarg Jonsson Each pagan god or goddess typically contained well rounded attributes, not just one. Freya, usually associated with sex and fertility, received first choice of the battle slain for her hall. Freya was followed by some warriors as their patron goddess. Thor, the god of the common man, was also associated with fertility. His hammer was placed in the lap of a new bride, to bless the marriage with children. Odin/Woden/Wotan, the god of the nobility, was not very popular. He was associated with death (the business of nobility). He was associated with the boatman, ferryman, disapater, selector and conductor of the slain. God of the subconscious and dark places. The cost of reciprocity with Odin could be death, he is a collector of the select dead. All of these gods were caught up in an epic struggle, which was cyclical. The cycle would end and begin again. It was a mythology, which brought order. Each diety could play the central part for that diety’s followers. The big G god, is everything all together and therefore unknowable or comprehensible. Pagan gods are not everywhere or all knowing. The Romans of the time considered Christians to be atheists. The big G was beyond understanding and certainly not a Phonecian thunder god adopted as the Hebrew big G or the rabbi version of Mythris. The Christians gave themselves feet of clay when they went from mythology to saying their cosmology was fact and without error. The great falling away was in the cards when they lost the capability of killing people for pointing out the obvious. The power is in the myth (J. Campbell). If not then the sword, I suppose.

  • The Cost of Our Endeavor

    Apr 29, 2020, 11:29 AM (revolution) I think radicalism, revolution, and pursuit of renaissance is personally costly for leadership. I’m a career executive entrepreneur who built my fortunes – starting in my early twenties – by acquisition and integration of companies consisting of people with different levels of education and experience. It is easier for me to see the world paternally rather than parentally, and managerially rather than interpersonally. And even more so militarily and politically rather than socially and familial. Within the spectrum of Political, Executive, Paternal, Parental, or Peerage relationships, our ‘reward’ – feedback – for our leadership varies across a big difference in not only people but time – and our frustration or self doubt must be held in check by our confidence in a field of mixed successes and failures over time. Because we wish to measure the change in individuals – rather than the social construction of organizational change that occurs through the fragmentary understanding of ever increasing numbers until they system (market) of people itself is self-correcting because there are sufficient fragments among people with partial knowledge and variation in ability that they collectively coalesce over time into emergent fundamental rules of concept, thought, paradigm, argument, and behavior without the reinforcement of the underlying understanding. I think some of us don’t have the stomach for ‘crossing the chasm’ into hostile territory: where we increasingly encounter people with increasingly greater differences in intuitions, understandings and wants. I think each of us needs to continue to discover whether we are supporter, activist, supplier, fighter, leader, and whether we educate as co-operator and ally, advisor and peer, a teacher and parent, a paternal executive, or a general for whom sacrifices – including of those we value – are the costs of winning wars for those whom we may not – but who have no other advocates. And given the spectrum of our current conditions we may not be in a personal position to choose our preference from the full range of choices available. But this is the stage we are at. Where we have a solution, there is market demand for it, and we must migrate from parents and small business owners to ‘industry leaders’ before we next migrate to politicians and generals. For some of us the cost of making a mark on history is worth paying. For others it is not. We can only make mark that we are willing and able to. But every mark adds to the whole. The only people who matter are those willing and able. The only people who matter at the beginning at first are those who fight, those who assist those who fight, and those who do not resist them. The rest are not important until they must be governed. But they are the ones who talk the most – generating demand for rule by those willing.