Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The economics of consumption has replaced morality in politics, but it is possib

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 16:29:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEM OF LEFT EGALITARIAN THOUGHT —“That is the problem with the egalita

    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

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 14:32:00 UTC

  • SET MATH, OPERATIONS, AND QUANTUM MECHANICS —“I suspect because in set theory

    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).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 14:28:00 UTC

  • CONVERTING KANT’S APRIORISM TO SCIENCE(TESTIMONY) A Priori: “independent of obse

    CONVERTING KANT’S APRIORISM TO SCIENCE(TESTIMONY)

    A Priori: “independent of observation.”

    There are three dimensions to a priori truth claims:

    i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori,

    ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and

    iii) Necessity vs Contingency

    Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims.

    (a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.

    (c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren.

    (b) “General” Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation.

    (d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”

    This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision:

    (a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori

    (b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori

    (c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori

    (d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori

    Nothing more to be said. We now have converted kantian apriorism to scientific and testimonial prose and in doing so explained the relationship between Testimonials and Kantian apriorism, and in doing so the increase in precision under P, increase in testability under P, and ended Kant’s attempt to undermine our ability to falsify and his attempt at preservation of christian and church authority.

    You may not yet grasp why that paragraph is so, but you will.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 13:44:00 UTC

  • WHICH OF YOUR COGNITIVE MARKETS ARE YOU SERVING? The verb to be circumvents exis

    WHICH OF YOUR COGNITIVE MARKETS ARE YOU SERVING?

    The verb to be circumvents existence, which is what you are trying to cirumvent testifying for, just as Heiddeger was trying to cirvument and reverse the verb and noun – because both of you are tyint go make speech conform to experience rather than speech test experience – which is it’s only POSSIBLE function unless you’re trying to lie.

    All imagination is produced by association and introspective causes justificationary but all speech like all action is falsificationary – whether or not we wish it to be.

    So you can describe your predictions, imaginations and fantasies (meaning) in an effort to deceive yourself and others, or you can speak your predictions, imaginations and fantasies (meaning) and have others falsify them or not, or you can act on your predications, imaginations, and fantasies (meaning) and physical reality will falsify them or not.

    We are capable of free association, imagination (prediction), and fiction (relations between predictions), just as we capable of our own falsification of our fictions (reason, calculation, computation). But this requires agency, and to prefer the rewards of knowledge (truth) over masturbation( sedation by daydreaming) .

    So we physically demonstrate the series: sense(collection), perception(disambiguation), auto-association (free association), prediction (imagination), fictions (compositions) produce hypotheses, and THEN we falsify (test) them (detect risk and losses) using Reason, Calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs) and computation (using assistants-to-memory to overcome limits – something a we cannot do without external instrumentation, especially symbols that preserve correspondence-name, and other properties of the name-noun expressed as measurements of varying degrees of precision.)

    So the question is which market are you serving when you speak? Purely psychological (psychotic), purely personal interpretation of interpersonal (solipsistic), interpersonal (empathic), practical action (evidentiary), generalization (analytic), generalization without empathy (aspergers), failure to generalize or empathize (autism).

    And this is the underlying question. Are you preventing your learning and continuous adaptation to reality by the incremental development of agency, or are you trying to do the opposite which is the primary function of all religions, and most philosophies, and most pseudoscience, and that is to justify not paying the psychological, emotional, physical, and material costs of adapting to reality such that you develop agency? And always and everywhere with very little effort we can ask any individual a few questions, and discover the economics of his or her system of decidability, given costs and returns. (my favorite being christians, muslims, and hindus, as we do not see this other than ‘nationalism’ in the far east and the non-superstitious right, and the upper classes who have and have demonstrated agency.

    We don’t think of language as a system of measurement (but measurement of what?) but a cursory disambiguation and operationalization of english vocabulary (names of references, whether person, place, thing, action, change etc – reduced to scales that are open to human perception. As an example, Time in english includes always – sometimes – just a bit ago – now – not just a bit ago – sometimes not, and never. Most english vocabulary follows this 3 to 5 to 7 example range, which is about the maximum of human means of disambiguation into scopes of untidily; matches human short term memory; matches the number of points necessary to falsify a line (reduce most errors). I find when I disambiguate a concept that is not well understood because of insufficient operationalization, I end up with twelve or more points. I find that when I serialize existing terms I end up with five or seven.

    And this difference illustrates the function of operationalization – to improve precision in human speech.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 09:48:00 UTC

  • TRUTH ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS People are rational actors acting in their rational sel

    TRUTH ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS

    People are rational actors acting in their rational self interests, that observe the minimum conformance to rule, procedure, norm, tradition, regulation, legislation, and law, necessary to preserve their status in the social order. Period. End of Story. Good luck falsifying it.

    People are not good, ethical, or moral. They are amoral. They discover what is in their self interest within the environmental limits and congratulate themselves for the content of their character (self image).

    This is the empirical evidence from all people in all cultures, in all countries, in all civilizations, across all of history.

    The civilization of man was performed by the incremental provision of incentives to find self congratulation in minimum accomodation of the various systems of rules, by the incremental evolution of law, norm, and custom to suppress as many opportunities for bad, unethical, immoral, conduct as affordable by the polity, and where incentives are possible to construct. Hence the necessity of sheriffs and policemen and populations increased in anonymity.

    We must govern amoral humans because all are amoral.

    Ergo we must govern pessimistically so that we continuously evolve the suppression of irreciprocity (the bad, unethical, immoral) as quickly as we evolve new methods of bad, unethical and immoral behavior.

    Optimism is why progressive governments fail.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 20:20:00 UTC

  • Teaching is a talent, with a tiny bit of craftsmanship. You can’t teach 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

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 12:01:00 UTC

  • GENDER AND THE BRAIN AS A MARKET FOR ATTENTION The brain functions by a market f

    GENDER AND THE BRAIN AS A MARKET FOR ATTENTION

    The brain functions by a market for attention. Differences in brain structure especially between genders, provide increases or decreases in attention achievable by different regions, with urgent attention provided by fears, and long term attention provided by incentives. Attention is easier for men because we compartmentalize our brains with less interaction, and harder for women because their brains are more integrated. Worse, the ability to suppress impulse from the frontal region and back to the hippocampal region and own to the thalamus varies by individual regardless of gender. Worse, men are more dominant and less agreeable by a bit, and as such are more likely to express physical urgencies, where women verbal urgencies.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 11:15:00 UTC

  • THE PRINCIPLE PROBLEM SOLVED BY P There is nothing in psychology, sociology, eth

    THE PRINCIPLE PROBLEM SOLVED BY P

    There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs.

    Any theory in metaphysics, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy must be constructable from rational incentives to acquire some sort of discount or premium, or the theory is false. It’s no different from any other of the logics: all logic is falsificationary.

    The principle problem facing the transformation of linguistic (metaphysical), psychological,social, legal, political, economic, and military disciplines is a failure to adopt the full accounting in those disciplines using economic equilibration = entropy in the physical sciences.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 10:47:00 UTC

  • THE ECONOMICS OF DATING AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but

    THE ECONOMICS OF DATING

    AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but a premium they can afford (not lose their investment); Women want to insure they attract the majority of attention in the relationship (are consumers of attention), or that through a relationship they increase their attention. Attention provides discounts on access to social opportunity – particularly for status signaling and verbal coercion.

    So, women seek an equilibrium under which they increase access to in-group social opportunity, have the resources to do so, but are able to control the source of resources, through control of attention. Men with money garner attention, put men in an advantageous position in relation to the woman, and increase women’s competition.

    Women want to buy with attention, words, and affection (low cost). Men want to buy with resources (high cost). The problem is women’s attention is scarce, and desirable, so it’s costly.

    There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs.

    Any theory in metaphysics, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy must be constructable from rational incentives to acquire some sort of discount or premium, or the theory is false. It’s no different from any other of the logics: all logic is falsificationary.

    The principle problem facing the transformation of linguistic (metaphysical), psychological,social, legal, political, economic, and military disciplines is a failure to adopt the full accounting in those disciplines using economic equilibration = entropy in the physical sciences.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 10:46:00 UTC