Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547138370 Timestamp) THE ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS OVER METAPHYSICS —“Anytime you utter the word “emergent phenomenon”, you automatically need another science. In order to count as such, a science needs to satisfy what constraints?”— Help me understand this because there is no limit that I can imagine to the scale of a neural (bayesian) network, and no limit to the cognitive ability of a hierarchical and recursive network – other than inputs and outputs. The limits we have today are mechanical – we have built the wrong kind of computers. Even such, at great heat-cost, we are able to replicate those networks. So for ‘speech’ to emerge just like for the touch ui to emerge we require hardware (biological ware). So somehow (random selection, intentional manipulation) the real-world interface determines what can be ‘identified, predicted, and judged’ by that recursive, hierarchical, network. —“real”– As far as I know real = existential = persistent = observable = observable directly, by instrumentation, or by deduction from deduction using instrumentation, where that instrumentation can be either physical(external) or logical (internal). As far as I know ‘real’ in the colloquial, refers to ACTIONABLE. As far as I know the only open question is an empty verbalism: experiences are constructed from a combination of perception with memories of perceptions, limited by the grammar of conception, which is brain structure, which appears to be little more than the neurological homunculus – which the more I understand, the less ‘human’ I feel. So do experience (concepts, etc) exist, or do they have the potential be experienced, and do they persist if and only if some number of us share the potential to experience them? Once we operationalize these questions they turn out to be quite simple. Do unicorns exist? Well, No. Do does the word unicorn exist? Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) of that word. So it we have knowledge of it. That knowledge persists in some distributed and fragmentary form. But it only exists as POTENTIAL. Whereas that which we claim exists already does so. Does that idea of a unicorn exist? Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) that can be accessed by that word, and using that index (word) we can recall some combination of fragmentary images of a unicorn (mine are the scenes in Blade Runner and after that, Legend of all things). So in Does the referent exist? Well, No. Does the index of the referent exist? Well, Yes. Does knowledge of the referent exist? Well, Yes. Yet again, we see, that a series stated in operational language solves the problem of the sophism of reductive questions. Unicorns don’t exist. An index (word) appears to have little or no direct sensation of itself. An index evokes a network of fragments, that recursively reflect additional fragments, and so on until we have exhausted our memories. the cortex (brain) is a continuous prediction system using fragments , and we can apply that prediction system to the real, the linguistic, and the imagined. What we call mind, probably an consequence of either cooperation, communication or language, or the sequence in total, consists largely in the direction of that forecasting (attention) and recursion (concentration). Is knowing this the same as experience? well no. Knowing this is however, defensive: eliminating the errors, bises, and deceits, that we and others engage in, with ourselves and others. WHAT ABOUT “NEED” – HUMAN DEMAND FOR COMFORTING FALSEHOODS Demand for Falsehoods today are driven by signal pressure and alienation pressure. In the past they were driven by signal pressure, competitive pressure, alienation pressure, and suffering pressure. We cannot fix signal pressure since it is necessary for selection, but we can fix mindfulness. We can’t fix alienation pressure but we can improve mindfulness and the civic society to reduce it. We can limit competitive pressure through the civic society and political ethnocentrism. And we can dramatically (and have) eliminated suffering pressure through mindfulness and medicine. Yes, the truth is that comforting lies (sophistry pseudoscience, the occult and denial), cults and groups, and sedation by alcohol, an drugs are CHEAP and DISORGANIZED means of providing mindfulness in the face of signal, alienation, competitive, and suffering pressures. However, we can likewise take and ORGANIZED and EXPENSIVE means of serving those market demands by non false and healthy and productive means. But like all contemporary problems (a) the collection of rent-seekers that will be displaced by the efforts to produce that order will fight desperately against these reforms (improvements) just as they will the legal and financial, because rent seeking that leaves people subject to pressures but gives them false hope is the most profitable industry of all. (b) not enough of us (yet) have taken up arms to alter that circumstance. NO MORE LIES

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547125060 Timestamp) —“Western society is dominant through the propagation of western currency, which has taking the place of western warfare, in order to maintain western dominance do you think the value of economic currency needs to be maintained or the value of western warfare needs to become the currency?”— A Friend Smart Question. I think the short answer is that western currency, and in particular, the american takeover of the british empire at bretton woods, which was dependent upon providing open access to the american market, and american guarantee of policing of world trade.

    1. Western dominance is not ‘needed’.

    2. Conflict of civilizations will emerge.

    3. Power evolved by increasingly subtle incentives: Violence > Religion > Administration > Economics > with next state being information (which scares me).

    4. The west competed successfully by a combination of technologies. The competitive advantage in other than trust (culture) has mostly been eliminated. the competitive advantage of demographic distribution is in the process of being eliminated.

    5. I do not see how the west can maintain military superiority. Military superiority requires technology. Technology requires wealth. Wealth requires population, trade routes, and all the rest…

    6. At present, Trump is attempting to force europeans to remilitarize by withdrawing military force from the region, and then the rest of the world, more slowly, because america no longer has the relative economic and technological advantage. Worse, chinese organization, government, and culture is superior for the conduct of military, economic, and political expansion.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547059043 Timestamp) THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS AND MAN Mathematics is just the most SIMPLE possible language since it has only one property: positional name. And positional names are unique and perfectly deflationary (non-conflationary) and as such very difficult to subject to our principal category of error: conflation. LET’S TAKE A JOURNEY: A CHANGE IN STATE (TIME) consists of entropy at the local rate of entropy. An INTERVAL (CHANGE) of time consists of a change in state. EXPERIENCE(PERCEPTION) consists of the conflation of sense-perception, memory, and neural prediction with that memory, over some interval of time. A set of CONSTANT RELATIONS (CATEGORY) consists of a set of properties reducible to analogy to experience, and commensurable (differentiable) by human experience. A REFERENCE (ASSOCIATION) consists of a set of constant relations. CORRESPONDENCE (NAMES) consists of a name (INDEX) of a comparison of indifference between a name (referrer) and a reference. NUMBERS (NOUNS) consists of positional names, and the correspondence of positional names with some referent. ARITHMETIC (VERBS) consists in the study of the grammar of numbers, and the properties possible operations upon and between them (addition, subtraction, and their iterations in multiplication, and division). ALGEBRA (GRAMMAR) consists in the study of the grammar of mathematical language: the production of well form statements in mathematical language, and the manipulation of symbols (words, phrases, sentences) in that mathematical language, allowing for the deduction, induction, abduction, and guessing of the missing content of those statements, or range of possible content of those statements. A DIMENSION (PHRASES) consist of a set of constant internal relations, and each additional dimension consists of a shared dependency between dimensions the accumulation of which produces a chain, hierarchy, or network of dependencies. A dimension can refer to any difference reducible to analogy to perception by the human mind, and therefore capable of commensurability, comparison, and decidability. GEOMETRY (SENTENCES) consists in the study of dimensions of STATEFUL shapes described by positional relations we call numbers, in n-number of dimensions (although most commonly in four), and the use of triangles to measure area and volume. CALCULUS (MEANING) (from Latin calculus, literally ‘small pebble’, used for counting and calculations, as on an abacus) is the mathematical study of continuous change. It has two major branches: a) Curves: differential calculus (concerning instantaneous rates of change and slopes of curves), and; b) Curved Areas: integral calculus (concerning accumulation of quantities and the areas under and between curves). –“These two branches are related to each other by the fundamental theorem of calculus. Both branches make use of the fundamental notions of convergence of infinite sequences and infinite series to a well-defined limit. (marginal indifference).”– This paragraph consists of nonsense-speech. Calculus, like geometry, uses a very large number of approximations of the area under a curve, where we choose some arbitrary degree of precision to determine the smallness of each approximation. This means that all measurements must specify some point of marginal indifference, (scale dependence, ‘limit’). HIGHER MATHEMATICS (DEDUCTION, INDUCTION, ABDUCTION, GUESSING), (most analysis) consists in using the available set of constant relations, and some combination of negative (deduction) and positive (construction) to engage in trial and error, to narrow the range of possible solutions. EMERGENT PATTERNS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS Any and all networks produce patterns of constant relations (‘symmetries’) of that which is frequent and possible and that which is infrequent or impossible. We then can name these symmetries, assign them positional names, and repeat the descriptive language we call the process all over again. This is how the universe functions from its yet unknown time-space substance, to the quantum level of behavior upon it, to the atomic level of behavior upon that, to the carbon level beyond that, to the life, the complex life, to the sentience beyond that. One level of operations produces some maximum set of operations which is then results in some maximum set of operations until we have reason, and mathematics, and sufficient knowledge to forecast (imagine, predict) potential alternative ‘sentences’ and act upon them to change state ourselves, and to capture the energy from having done so, so that we ourselves continue to defeat entropy. All Reason consists of this using this series, all of which are simply statements of available information: 1. Identity 2. Equality 3. Deduction 4. Induction 5. Abduction 6. Guessing 7. Free Association 8. Intuition. 9. Unobservable. In reasoning we can either: 1. construct (justify), 2. test (falsify) 3. continuously recursively disambiguate.(analyze with language) 4. eliminate by trial and error in construction, falsification, and analysis. 5. eliminate by trial and error in the market for application. We can deceive by: 1. Failure of due diligence 2. Denial 3. Obscurantism, loading, framing 4. Conflation 5. Inflation 6. fictionalization 7. Deceit 8. Environmental deceit (saturation, popaganda) EVERYTHING WE DO FOLLOWS THE SAME EPISTEMIC PROCESS The competition between: 1. construction by continuous recursive disambiguation (free association), and; 2. continuous prediction (anticipation), and; 3. continuous falsification (elimination). In this order: 1. Experience (market for association in memory) > 2. Free Association (prediction/falsification in reason) > 3. Hypothesis (criticism/falsification in testing) > 4. Theory (criticism/falsification in application ) > 5. Law(survival) > 6. Habituation (presumption) > 7. Revision (iterate) Philosophizing only tells us if something is false. Nothing more The only means of due diligence is falsifying each dimension of possible human perception: 1. survival from falsification of identity 2. survival from falsification of internal consistency (logic) 3. survival from falsification by external correspondence (empiricism). 4. survival from falsification by operationalization and operational description. 5. survival from falsification by subjective test of rational choice 7. survival from falsification by reciprocal test of rational choice. 8. survival from falsification by tests of limits and full accounting (scope). 9. survival from falsification by of internal consistency across all of these methods of due diligence (coherence). In summary, operational grammar is the same as mathematical grammar: extremely difficult to circumvent tests of deflation and disambiguation in that hierarchy of real world dimensions. The human body, intuition, and mind, is a standard of measurement because of the marginal indifference of perception cognition and action, and the ‘grammar’ of operations, provides continuous consistency from the subatomic universe to the experiential. Once you understand this, the demand for ePrime (operational language), in complete sentences will be rather obvious.

    • Cheers

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547142386 Timestamp) ARISTOTLE AS OUR LAWGIVER, vs THE PROPHETS AND THEIR LIES. The first reason to reform Aristotle by translation of his works into operational language is to lionize him and make him the founder of western thought – the via negativa, to the Nihilism of Socrates and the Idealism of Plato, and the lies of the Abrahamists whether Abraham, Saul, or Mohammed. This form of heroic Idolization anthropomorphizes the character (and his military peer alexander) such that we can engage in hero-competition with competing civilizations and their advocates, and our own sophists within, (b) and anchor western civilization as a continuous tradition from our origins in European customary law of sovereignty and tort, to the present anglo common law of tort. The second reason is to falsify all the pseudo-philosophy and theology that exists between aristotle and the present. Now re-writing Aristotle in operational prose would be the equivalent of the work undertaken to produce the king james bible, and the basis of a western education – particularly the Ethics. When combined with the foundational myth of the Trial of Achilles (taught to children by dividing up the work and memorizing it by chanting – given that vast parts are repeated over and over again – and presented by classes as a holiday play). We would have the Hellenic tradition restored. Doing the same for each series of festivals for the old germanic and celtic in fall and winter, and preserving Easter for the christian and mayday would be relatively simple. We can re-ritualize our civilization as historical play. Because, as Nietzsche taught us, it is the participation of the chorus, whether in games, play, ritual, church, or prayer that provides the mindfulness of associating the sacred and collective with the mythos that binds them. If we have an education system (church limited by the natural law) that teaches mindfulness, history, the tools of calculation (reading, writing, numbers, economics, physics), reduce education to part time as soon as children are able to engage in part time work, and put as great an emphasis on apprenticeship as we do higher education, and limit ‘higher education’ to that which requires advanced calculation (stem+l) we can restore the civic society and eliminate the alienation and signal warfare endemic to consumer modernity. If this church, which provides education, also serves the function of consumer banking, savings, and investment, with near-zero interest on durable goods, then we will have restored the ancient order and destroyed the entire network of parasites and rent seekers in academy, finance, and state. We do not need to establish this church. We merely need to provide the economic incentives to do so, and the regulatory law that binds them to the construction of that common good. The most notable exception would be the use of successful retired people in the administration and teaching of these things rather than those who have been insulated from market forces, market competition, and demonstrated market achievement.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547059043 Timestamp) THE LANGUAGE OF MATHEMATICS AND MAN Mathematics is just the most SIMPLE possible language since it has only one property: positional name. And positional names are unique and perfectly deflationary (non-conflationary) and as such very difficult to subject to our principal category of error: conflation. LET’S TAKE A JOURNEY: A CHANGE IN STATE (TIME) consists of entropy at the local rate of entropy. An INTERVAL (CHANGE) of time consists of a change in state. EXPERIENCE(PERCEPTION) consists of the conflation of sense-perception, memory, and neural prediction with that memory, over some interval of time. A set of CONSTANT RELATIONS (CATEGORY) consists of a set of properties reducible to analogy to experience, and commensurable (differentiable) by human experience. A REFERENCE (ASSOCIATION) consists of a set of constant relations. CORRESPONDENCE (NAMES) consists of a name (INDEX) of a comparison of indifference between a name (referrer) and a reference. NUMBERS (NOUNS) consists of positional names, and the correspondence of positional names with some referent. ARITHMETIC (VERBS) consists in the study of the grammar of numbers, and the properties possible operations upon and between them (addition, subtraction, and their iterations in multiplication, and division). ALGEBRA (GRAMMAR) consists in the study of the grammar of mathematical language: the production of well form statements in mathematical language, and the manipulation of symbols (words, phrases, sentences) in that mathematical language, allowing for the deduction, induction, abduction, and guessing of the missing content of those statements, or range of possible content of those statements. A DIMENSION (PHRASES) consist of a set of constant internal relations, and each additional dimension consists of a shared dependency between dimensions the accumulation of which produces a chain, hierarchy, or network of dependencies. A dimension can refer to any difference reducible to analogy to perception by the human mind, and therefore capable of commensurability, comparison, and decidability. GEOMETRY (SENTENCES) consists in the study of dimensions of STATEFUL shapes described by positional relations we call numbers, in n-number of dimensions (although most commonly in four), and the use of triangles to measure area and volume. CALCULUS (MEANING) (from Latin calculus, literally ‘small pebble’, used for counting and calculations, as on an abacus) is the mathematical study of continuous change. It has two major branches: a) Curves: differential calculus (concerning instantaneous rates of change and slopes of curves), and; b) Curved Areas: integral calculus (concerning accumulation of quantities and the areas under and between curves). –“These two branches are related to each other by the fundamental theorem of calculus. Both branches make use of the fundamental notions of convergence of infinite sequences and infinite series to a well-defined limit. (marginal indifference).”– This paragraph consists of nonsense-speech. Calculus, like geometry, uses a very large number of approximations of the area under a curve, where we choose some arbitrary degree of precision to determine the smallness of each approximation. This means that all measurements must specify some point of marginal indifference, (scale dependence, ‘limit’). HIGHER MATHEMATICS (DEDUCTION, INDUCTION, ABDUCTION, GUESSING), (most analysis) consists in using the available set of constant relations, and some combination of negative (deduction) and positive (construction) to engage in trial and error, to narrow the range of possible solutions. EMERGENT PATTERNS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS Any and all networks produce patterns of constant relations (‘symmetries’) of that which is frequent and possible and that which is infrequent or impossible. We then can name these symmetries, assign them positional names, and repeat the descriptive language we call the process all over again. This is how the universe functions from its yet unknown time-space substance, to the quantum level of behavior upon it, to the atomic level of behavior upon that, to the carbon level beyond that, to the life, the complex life, to the sentience beyond that. One level of operations produces some maximum set of operations which is then results in some maximum set of operations until we have reason, and mathematics, and sufficient knowledge to forecast (imagine, predict) potential alternative ‘sentences’ and act upon them to change state ourselves, and to capture the energy from having done so, so that we ourselves continue to defeat entropy. All Reason consists of this using this series, all of which are simply statements of available information: 1. Identity 2. Equality 3. Deduction 4. Induction 5. Abduction 6. Guessing 7. Free Association 8. Intuition. 9. Unobservable. In reasoning we can either: 1. construct (justify), 2. test (falsify) 3. continuously recursively disambiguate.(analyze with language) 4. eliminate by trial and error in construction, falsification, and analysis. 5. eliminate by trial and error in the market for application. We can deceive by: 1. Failure of due diligence 2. Denial 3. Obscurantism, loading, framing 4. Conflation 5. Inflation 6. fictionalization 7. Deceit 8. Environmental deceit (saturation, popaganda) EVERYTHING WE DO FOLLOWS THE SAME EPISTEMIC PROCESS The competition between: 1. construction by continuous recursive disambiguation (free association), and; 2. continuous prediction (anticipation), and; 3. continuous falsification (elimination). In this order: 1. Experience (market for association in memory) > 2. Free Association (prediction/falsification in reason) > 3. Hypothesis (criticism/falsification in testing) > 4. Theory (criticism/falsification in application ) > 5. Law(survival) > 6. Habituation (presumption) > 7. Revision (iterate) Philosophizing only tells us if something is false. Nothing more The only means of due diligence is falsifying each dimension of possible human perception: 1. survival from falsification of identity 2. survival from falsification of internal consistency (logic) 3. survival from falsification by external correspondence (empiricism). 4. survival from falsification by operationalization and operational description. 5. survival from falsification by subjective test of rational choice 7. survival from falsification by reciprocal test of rational choice. 8. survival from falsification by tests of limits and full accounting (scope). 9. survival from falsification by of internal consistency across all of these methods of due diligence (coherence). In summary, operational grammar is the same as mathematical grammar: extremely difficult to circumvent tests of deflation and disambiguation in that hierarchy of real world dimensions. The human body, intuition, and mind, is a standard of measurement because of the marginal indifference of perception cognition and action, and the ‘grammar’ of operations, provides continuous consistency from the subatomic universe to the experiential. Once you understand this, the demand for ePrime (operational language), in complete sentences will be rather obvious.

    • Cheers

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547339450 Timestamp) WHAT IS METAPHYSICS? —“Why study metaphysics? Metaphysics consist of the study of the (constitution) of reality. It is the (method or process) by which we come to a (paradigm) of (the laws of the universe, laws of cooperation, laws of perception-experience, and laws of reason), and from that (paradigm) make choices about what we want to think, feel, and do to make the most of our own experience of life and the world.”— The study of Metaphysics then serves our will to power (successful action). Or does it? I deflate the big question into a hierarchy : 1 – ‘What can we perceive, experience, cognate, and act upon?’ 2 – ‘How is our experience produced?’ 3 – ‘What are the limits of our perception, experience, cognition and action?” 4 – ‘What may be beyond our perceptions and experience and cognition? 5 – ‘What are the first premises (assumptions, presumptions, rules, laws) by which we test our perceptions, experience, and ideas?’ 6 – And how does our experience differ from those laws? 7 – And how can we act to take advantage of this knowledge? The problem is, that since we must act to survive and prosper, can only act within the limits of our perception, experience, cognition, and action, and can only extend perceptions by action in the universe, and all increases in our understanding of what is beyond our perception, experience, cognition, have followed consistent rules of parsimony all of which relegate our experience to a natural consequence of competitive complexity given a long enough and stable enough period of evolutionary computation. Action (operations) is the only system of measurement that is not a lie – because it is what the entirety of the set of questions depends upon: the grammar and semantics of action, cognition, experience, and perception. So the question is not what is metaphysics. The question is, Why is it men seek using metaphysics to lie? So the issue is whether we are confirming the former to the latter (lying) or the latter to the former (adapting), or whether we inventing the former to serve the latter for the purpose of fraud, rent seeking, free riding, and other forms of parasitism – because so far that seems the primary distinction between philosophers/theologians and scientists. You see, a fraud, a sophist, philosopher, or theologian uses justification to ask ‘what can I get away with?’, while a scientist and a jurist ask ‘what can we insure you’re not getting away with?’ Hence why law (man) and science (nature) account for costs, and philosophy(man) and theology(nature) do not. Because costs allow us to measure frauds, thefts, et al. How many philosophers and theologians would survive prosecution for fraud?

    • Curt

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547339450 Timestamp) WHAT IS METAPHYSICS? —“Why study metaphysics? Metaphysics consist of the study of the (constitution) of reality. It is the (method or process) by which we come to a (paradigm) of (the laws of the universe, laws of cooperation, laws of perception-experience, and laws of reason), and from that (paradigm) make choices about what we want to think, feel, and do to make the most of our own experience of life and the world.”— The study of Metaphysics then serves our will to power (successful action). Or does it? I deflate the big question into a hierarchy : 1 – ‘What can we perceive, experience, cognate, and act upon?’ 2 – ‘How is our experience produced?’ 3 – ‘What are the limits of our perception, experience, cognition and action?” 4 – ‘What may be beyond our perceptions and experience and cognition? 5 – ‘What are the first premises (assumptions, presumptions, rules, laws) by which we test our perceptions, experience, and ideas?’ 6 – And how does our experience differ from those laws? 7 – And how can we act to take advantage of this knowledge? The problem is, that since we must act to survive and prosper, can only act within the limits of our perception, experience, cognition, and action, and can only extend perceptions by action in the universe, and all increases in our understanding of what is beyond our perception, experience, cognition, have followed consistent rules of parsimony all of which relegate our experience to a natural consequence of competitive complexity given a long enough and stable enough period of evolutionary computation. Action (operations) is the only system of measurement that is not a lie – because it is what the entirety of the set of questions depends upon: the grammar and semantics of action, cognition, experience, and perception. So the question is not what is metaphysics. The question is, Why is it men seek using metaphysics to lie? So the issue is whether we are confirming the former to the latter (lying) or the latter to the former (adapting), or whether we inventing the former to serve the latter for the purpose of fraud, rent seeking, free riding, and other forms of parasitism – because so far that seems the primary distinction between philosophers/theologians and scientists. You see, a fraud, a sophist, philosopher, or theologian uses justification to ask ‘what can I get away with?’, while a scientist and a jurist ask ‘what can we insure you’re not getting away with?’ Hence why law (man) and science (nature) account for costs, and philosophy(man) and theology(nature) do not. Because costs allow us to measure frauds, thefts, et al. How many philosophers and theologians would survive prosecution for fraud?

    • Curt

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547270284 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING worth repeating One does not criticize either terminology or deviation from normative definitions, but instead, the precision of the definitions, such that we are free of opportunity for conflation, and subsequent error. Each field uses terminology particular to it, and propertarianism (law) uses universals (operational names in series) across all fields. In either case we define terms that eliminate the error and potential for error in colloquial speech (“ordinary language”). In other words no field is, can be, reduced to ordinary language without the introduction of the vast ignorance and error that separates ordinary language from scientific language. That is because the existence of, and market demands for science and scientific prose evolved precisely to compensate for the ignorance, error, bias, fictionalism, and deceit in ordinary language. And moreover, since propertarianism serves as the scientific language of social science – including history, economics, law, sociology, morality, ethics, psychology, and language itself – we are forcing into the political discourse the same adaptation as did the revolution in physical science: and with equally disruptive consequences to normative language, ideas, ideology, religion, and language of those disciplines. So the criticism that we should use the colloquial speech in our effort to change social sciences from sophisms and pseudoscience dependent upon intuition and projection, and monopoly and conformity, into a form of calculation as is used in the other sciences, and divisions of cognition and labor, and conditions of cooperation, competition, and war, is rather … ridiculous really. All systems of symbolic calculation whether they be the small difference between spoken language and written language, or great differences between spoken language, written language, arithmetic, accounting, geometry, the calculus, relativity, chemistry, biology, ecology, economics, require training. The great difference is that we are all more invested in our daily use of the psychological, social, and political, such that we defend those investments no matter how bad they are. Unfortunately the average idiot who will readily say he understands neither advanced mathematics, economics, or subatomic physics will not similarly question his understanding of ethics, morality, and politics – thereby demonstrating his lack of agency due to malinvestment and ignorance, and genetic, gender, class, cultural bias. Ergo, there is no shortcut to knowledge. Calculation is counter intuitive – particularly in intuitionistic subjects.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547486221 Timestamp) RELATIVE COSTS AND INCOME BALANCE OUT MAJOR DIFFERENCES IS NOT STATE BUT URBAN VS RURAL Alabama Median household income: $44,765 Regional price parity out of 100: 86.8 Real income: $51,573 Alaska Median household income: $73,355 Regional price parity out of 100: 105.6 Real income: $69,465 Arizona Median household income: $51,492 Regional price parity out of 100: 96.2 Real income: $53,526 Arkansas Median household income: $41,995 Regional price parity out of 100: 87.4 Real income: $48,049 California Median household income: $64,500 Regional price parity out of 100: 113.4 Real income: $56,878 Colorado Median household income: $63,909 Regional price parity out of 100: 103.2 Real income: $61,927 Connecticut Median household income: $71,346 Regional price parity out of 100: 108.7 Real income: $65,636 Delaware Median household income: $61,255 Regional price parity out of 100: 100.4 Real income: $61,011 District of Columbia Median household income: $75,628 Regional price parity out of 100: 117 Real income: $64,639 Florida Median household income: $49,426 Regional price parity out of 100: 99.5 Real income: $49,674 Georgia Median household income: $51,244 Regional price parity out of 100: 92.6 Real income: $55,339 Hawaii Median household income: $73,486 Regional price parity out of 100: 118.8 Real income: $61,857 Idaho Median household income: $48,275 Regional price parity out of 100: 93.4 Real income: $51,686 Illinois Median household income: $59,588 Regional price parity out of 100: 99.7 Real income: $59,767 Indiana Median household income: $50,532 Regional price parity out of 100: 90.7 Real income: $55,713 Iowa Median household income: $54,736 Regional price parity out of 100: 90.3 Real income: $60,616 Kansas Median household income: $53,906 Regional price parity out of 100: 90.4 Real income: $59,631 Kentucky Median household income: $45,215 Regional price parity out of 100: 88.6 Real income: $51,033 Louisiana Median household income: $45,727 Regional price parity out of 100: 90.6 Real income: $50,471 Maine Median household income: $51,494 Regional price parity out of 100: 98 Real income: $52,545 Maryland Median household income: $75,847 Regional price parity out of 100: 109.6 Real income: $69,203 Massachusetts Median household income: $70,628 Regional price parity out of 100: 106.9 Real income: $66,069 Michigan Median household income: $51,084 Regional price parity out of 100: 93.5 Real income: $54,635 Minnesota Median household income: $63,488 Regional price parity out of 100: 97.4 Real income: $65,183 Mississippi Median household income: $40,593 Regional price parity out of 100: 86.2 Real income: $47,092 Missouri Median household income: $50,238 Regional price parity out of 100: 89.3 Real income: $56,258 Montana Median household income: $49,509 Regional price parity out of 100: 94.8 Real income: $52,225 Nebraska Median household income: $54,996 Regional price parity out of 100: 90.6 Real income: $60,702

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547486221 Timestamp) RELATIVE COSTS AND INCOME BALANCE OUT MAJOR DIFFERENCES IS NOT STATE BUT URBAN VS RURAL Alabama Median household income: $44,765 Regional price parity out of 100: 86.8 Real income: $51,573 Alaska Median household income: $73,355 Regional price parity out of 100: 105.6 Real income: $69,465 Arizona Median household income: $51,492 Regional price parity out of 100: 96.2 Real income: $53,526 Arkansas Median household income: $41,995 Regional price parity out of 100: 87.4 Real income: $48,049 California Median household income: $64,500 Regional price parity out of 100: 113.4 Real income: $56,878 Colorado Median household income: $63,909 Regional price parity out of 100: 103.2 Real income: $61,927 Connecticut Median household income: $71,346 Regional price parity out of 100: 108.7 Real income: $65,636 Delaware Median household income: $61,255 Regional price parity out of 100: 100.4 Real income: $61,011 District of Columbia Median household income: $75,628 Regional price parity out of 100: 117 Real income: $64,639 Florida Median household income: $49,426 Regional price parity out of 100: 99.5 Real income: $49,674 Georgia Median household income: $51,244 Regional price parity out of 100: 92.6 Real income: $55,339 Hawaii Median household income: $73,486 Regional price parity out of 100: 118.8 Real income: $61,857 Idaho Median household income: $48,275 Regional price parity out of 100: 93.4 Real income: $51,686 Illinois Median household income: $59,588 Regional price parity out of 100: 99.7 Real income: $59,767 Indiana Median household income: $50,532 Regional price parity out of 100: 90.7 Real income: $55,713 Iowa Median household income: $54,736 Regional price parity out of 100: 90.3 Real income: $60,616 Kansas Median household income: $53,906 Regional price parity out of 100: 90.4 Real income: $59,631 Kentucky Median household income: $45,215 Regional price parity out of 100: 88.6 Real income: $51,033 Louisiana Median household income: $45,727 Regional price parity out of 100: 90.6 Real income: $50,471 Maine Median household income: $51,494 Regional price parity out of 100: 98 Real income: $52,545 Maryland Median household income: $75,847 Regional price parity out of 100: 109.6 Real income: $69,203 Massachusetts Median household income: $70,628 Regional price parity out of 100: 106.9 Real income: $66,069 Michigan Median household income: $51,084 Regional price parity out of 100: 93.5 Real income: $54,635 Minnesota Median household income: $63,488 Regional price parity out of 100: 97.4 Real income: $65,183 Mississippi Median household income: $40,593 Regional price parity out of 100: 86.2 Real income: $47,092 Missouri Median household income: $50,238 Regional price parity out of 100: 89.3 Real income: $56,258 Montana Median household income: $49,509 Regional price parity out of 100: 94.8 Real income: $52,225 Nebraska Median household income: $54,996 Regional price parity out of 100: 90.6 Real income: $60,702