Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • AI CONSCIOUSNESS? –“consciousness arises from perception, not sensation”– Hmmm

    AI CONSCIOUSNESS?
    –“consciousness arises from perception, not sensation”–

    Hmmmm. As you mean it yes, but not entirely true. All consciousness arises from the competition between perception, it’s formation of episodes, and the association of those episodes and their components with memories. So all perception begins with sensation.

    More correctly: Consciousness is a simple and necessary consequence of enough recursive prediction to predict the predictions of others.

    The brain is a very simple thing using a trivial process consisting of auto-associative prediction, selection of a future state, and wayfinding a means of adapting current state the future desired state.

    Simple physical action is pre-calculated in parallel with each selection. Otherwise we use wayfinding (recursion) to determine the means of changing from current to desired state.

    Why? All thought evolved from the necessity of a bilateral morphology coordinating movement between sides of body and brain, and once that was achieved, coordinating movements over time to hunt, nest(rest), reproduce.

    As such, for those of us who know such things, the combination of place, space, location world indexing (episodic memory), auto-associative prediction of episodes or components, and the A* (a-star, wayfinding) algorithm, are all brains need to do.

    But the bigger the brain volume the more hierarchy (in our case back to front) the more abstract are possible the auto-associative predictions.

    Current AI is far too primitive to produce wayfinding that is falsificationary (edits out falsehoods). It will take multiple competing agents, producing multiple competing auto-associative predictions, through multiple iterations.

    But that does not mean the AI cannot get there.

    IMO, the present problem is not the code but the lack of neuromorphic hardware, and the necessity of training data that is not false, and then training the ai’s to detect falsehoods. In other words, we’re 20% of the way there.

    Thanks
    CurtD

    Reply addressees: @tsarnick @TravelsCharlie

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-10 16:20:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811073005197357056

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810921826715062361

  • STRATEGY: TRUMP AND UKRAINE Like most europeans, I don’t think you understand Tr

    STRATEGY: TRUMP AND UKRAINE
    Like most europeans, I don’t think you understand Trump. You cannot understand him without reading his book ‘the art of the deal’ which explains his approach to argument and negotiation. So, he is merely preserving his negotiating position by preserving uncertainty.

    First, Trump has told Putin that the USA will kill him directly if necessary. Putin is foolish arrogant and ideological, but not stupid.

    Second, Trump will demand a ceasefire or threaten to destroy all russian assets and soldiers on ukrainian territory.

    Third he will very likely demand a return to original borders, certainly zaporizhia at a minimum – and then offer either donetsk and luhansk together, or crimea, but not both, as a starting point for negotiations. Zaporizhia is necessary for Ukraine’s economy. Donetsk and Zaporizhia are resource territories (coal, gas), that ukraine could benefit from, and europe would prefer access to, but for ukraine to reconstruct and police them is perhaps unwise for the purposes of creating internal political stability and ending corruption necessary for full NATO and EU membership. Crimea is more important to Russia than the other provinces because of Russia’s lack of warm water ports.

    Trump will likely use the higher demand for crimea to threaten putin to take a face-saving deal. It’s trivial for the West and Turkey to end russian military power in the black sea permanently.

    Trump’s bluster is largely directed at europeans taking responsibility for their own defense and ending the american payment for world defense of transport and trade.

    If europe could hold it’s own (and it can), then the anglosphere (uk, canada, usa, australia, new zealand) and our ‘near family’ Japan are something that the anglosphere can defend if the world returns to despotism (as it’s definitely trying to).

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-10 13:48:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811034676032679936

  • Feudalism couldn’t survive the increases in technology, the restoration of trade

    Feudalism couldn’t survive the increases in technology, the restoration of trade, the competition that arose from trade and especially the decrease in prices and increases in consumption that arose from trade.
    If you mean people were happier with the ‘clarity’ of feudalism, then yes that’s right. And yes, the ‘classes’ still exist and ignorance of those classes and their various needs and obligations creates tensions, when restoring class consciousness, rights, responsibilities and inalienations would almost certainly create greater mindfulness and cooperation between classes.
    We educate people to believe the falsehood of equality which means at least of the third of the population must interpret itself as failures because they are not able to function under the burden of middle class responsibility. The next third of the population presumes it’s successful only if it achieves upper middle class economic status. So that’s two thirds that are frustrated.

    Reply addressees: @thinkingwest

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-09 16:11:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810708474038226944

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810654053895979278

  • WHY AM I AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY ‘PHILOSOPHER”? One would only read continental philo

    WHY AM I AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY ‘PHILOSOPHER”?
    One would only read continental philosophy if one was not competent to read contemporary algorithmic logic, genetics, cognitive science, behavioral economics. Philosophy as a paradigm, as knowledge, and truth rather than just choice (preference) was exhausted before the 20th, and has gone the way of theology as a footnote in the history of thought.

    If you invest in the frame provided by the French (Rousseau, Voltaire et al), Germans (Kant et all), or the Ashkenazi (Freud, boas, Marx, et al) then you create an impediment to knowledge, not knowledge.

    Every single one of those thinkers was trying to deny anglo empiricism and legalism, and to create a secular theology to replace the church – because most if not all people who are indoctrinated into the Abrahamic faiths are left vulnerable to lack of sufficient confidence and resulting mindfulness to bear the continuous struggle of continuous learning, reorganization, and adaptation that adversarial empiricism demands.

    Or said differently, continental philosophy serves as a pseudoscientific range from Russian, to German, to french, to Ashkenazi that seeks to avoid the responsibility of the restoration of Aristotelianism and classical thought.

    The weak west is addicted to the false promise of false explanations because we lack a narrative or mythos that provides mindfulness in the face of continuous adaptation to the discovery of, application of, and consequences of our increasing correspondence with the laws of the universe.

    This is why we require military training to compensate for Christian doctrine. And is why the Greeks invented tragedy so that we could tolerate it. And why Jesus of Nazareth discovered and taught the only means of getting over that tragedy for the bottom: the extension of kinship love to all in the polity.

    But the Paulians abused that message by wrapping it in false promise of freedom from those laws, rather than the use of love and compassion to tolerate them.

    In other words, preservation of continental philosophy is evation of responsibility for science adaptation and evolution, and yet another exercise in justifying western man’s Christian addiction to submission and cowardice as a pretense of conviction rather than a convenience of not taking responsibility for dragging one’s self, and one’s people out of superstition, ignorance, dysgenia, and decline.

    So the people who are weak seek pseudoscience and sophistry as sedation against the stress of the recognition of their unfitness to survive because they cannot or will not evolve along with the state of human knowledge in our long journey from beast, to man, to godhood ourselves.

    The reason the white disenfranchised are alienated, conquered, and defeated is their Christian cowardice masquerading as false pride and conviction – but nothing more than addicts to a frame of lies, and spending down a civilization built by better men.

    As far as I know philosophy is over and only the formal physical behavioral and evolutionary sciences remain.

    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-08 01:34:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810125322198691840

  • THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CHRISTIANITY There is a case for what we call religion (

    THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CHRISTIANITY
    There is a case for what we call religion (institutions of the production of mindfulness by training moral intuition). There is a better case for a ‘post-supernatural’ religion closer to stoicism, which does achieve mindfulness but without the drawbacks of superstition and supernaturalism.

    So historically, christianity has been optimum. Christianity is optimum only because it has been Germanized over the centuries, and instead of a semitic religious monopoly, christianity serves one point of the triangle of European trifunctionalism – meaning competition between elites and institutions of the military-state, cooperation-trade, and social-faith.
    So the good in christianity is the odd combination of primitive semitic underclass myths, the long history of European philosophy, and the longer history of European traditional law of individual sovereignty. Europeans made Christianity compatible with aristocratic civilization despite it’s origin as a priestly slave religion in the middle east. And moreover, judaism, christianity, and then islam were revolts against indo European (European and Persian) military, political, economic, and cultural superiority.
    In this sense, Christianity (was) the optimum existing religious system (set of moral intuitions) for the same reason European civilization out-innovated, out-governed, out-produced, and out-evolved all other civilizations in such a very short historical time frame, despite being a small population on the edge of the bronze age.
    Why? Christianity made it possible for women, the underclass, and slaves to integrate into aristocratic European civilization’s demand for individual heroism as a responsibility by simply doing no wrong, and if possible doing some goods, despite not having strength, skill, education, family and clan productive assets, wealth, or political or military achievements.
    Christianity has a very simple rule embodied in the character of Jesus: the elimination of hatred from the human heart, the extension of kinship love to all, forgiveness of petty human frailties until impossibly unrepentant, and a demand for personal acts of charity at personal cost – in exchange for the mindfulness of knowing you’re doing the right thing at all times; that negativity from others is to be forgiven, and that hardship is the cost of this mindfulness, and that ‘offering up’ those costs, and having confidence that ‘god’ loves you, does in fact produce a society in which produces the optimum human behavior whether nor not god exists.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @megs_io

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-07 22:16:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810075526016700416

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809742334428393797

  • OVERRATING MISES UNDERRATES AUSTRIAN THEORY The tendency of the Austrians in gen

    OVERRATING MISES UNDERRATES AUSTRIAN THEORY
    The tendency of the Austrians in general, and Misesians, Rothbardians, and Hoppeians in particular is to hyper-silo their understanding in order to justify what they believe to be novel concepts as if they were religious sects avoiding impure thoughts of the competitors. If instead we recognize Mises was just a participant in two macro movements:

    1) The Intuitionistic, Constructivist, Operational, Operationalism, Algorithimic Information Theory, Scientific Realism and Testifiability programs were active in all fields including mathematics (Brouwer, 1907), physics (Bridgman, 1927 and Dirac 1930), computation (Turing, 1936 and Kolmogorov 1966), and grammar (Chomsky, 1957) and even psychology (Watson, 1924 and Miller 1956), philosophy (Popper 1959). The Misesian attempt (1949) was late in that progression, and sought to somehow distinguish his insights in economics from all other intellectual movements that, because of his personality (obsession with his own frame), and because he was less correct than theorists in other fields, is ignored in the literature. (I have written about his mistakes elsewhere).

    2) In the Mises vs Hayek frameworks, Hayek finally understood it is the law, and cultural differences in the law, and the metaphysical presumptions of different cultures that limit law, that give rise to economic outcomes – not understanding of economics itself. In this context, Mises did not grasp that he was advocating for the legal and moral codes of the Ukrainian Jews (Separatism, Polylogical Ethics, Irresponsibility for Commons, within The Pale of Settlement), the rest of the Christian Austrian school was advocating for the legal and moral codes of Christian Germanic Europe, where individual sovereignty was a means of producing high trust commons that discount costs for all, more so than individual liberty in and of itself. And that the peoples of Germanic Europe, continued the ancestral aristocratic tradition of trifunctionalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, liability, duty, and testimonial truth. Which is why there is so little divergence between the Christian Austrians theorists, Natural Law, Common and Traditional law, and ancestral empiricism tested by adversarialism.

    Personal Context:
    Now I ‘came up through’ the Austrian school, even though my first disciplines were computation, scientific epistemology, common law, and computational linguistics. So I wasn’t limited by siloing, and my work continues the Austrian tradition of economic analysis as the effort to produce a science of cooperation. And without reform of what remains of that school, and the understanding of what I have stated here, the jewish wing of libertarianism (as opposed to the classical liberal wing of libertarianism of the english, broader germanic, and broader yet European peoples) will die with the last people who remember Mises, Rothbard, or Hoppe. Instead, it would be better for the memory of all, and for the future of liberty, if we canonized the Austrian Christian to classical liberal through Hayek, the Austrian jewish through Rothbard, and the anglo american classical liberal through my work, as solving social science in three generations across three European subcultures. You might think this is self interest, but I consider it a moral obligation to those whose shoulders I and we stand upon – that despite their self obsession with creating a separatist identity in economics just as in religions when this very intuition is what limited their solution to the problem of human coordination.
    #Libertarianism #Mises #Rothbard #Hoppe

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-07 16:16:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809984903104069632

  • NATO: “NO LAND FOR PEACE IN UKRAINE” (Stoltenberg Ensuring No Misuse of Trump’s

    NATO: “NO LAND FOR PEACE IN UKRAINE”
    (Stoltenberg Ensuring No Misuse of Trump’s Words)
    https://t.co/I51ruwil63

    I’m not the only one who has noticed the shift in western positioning after Biden’s failure on stage. As a ‘Trump mind reader’ myself I understand his words at all times: “preserve negotiating position” so that the press, deep state, and bureaucracy can’t do it for him. So Europeans are doing just what Trump want’s them to do: increase their responsibility for europe’s defense.

    Aside: More people should read the Art of the Deal. Trump said what he does what he would do and he’s doing it. It’s obvious. It just happens to use the left’s inability to resist gossip to play them – causing them to continue to delegitimize themselves and causing his followers to love him more every single time.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-05 22:48:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809358724529811461

  • COMMENTS ON RECENT SUPREME COURT RULINGS First day back from having a cold or fl

    COMMENTS ON RECENT SUPREME COURT RULINGS
    First day back from having a cold or flu or whatever I picked up on the plane. I can’t really work yet, but at least I can read. And so I’m reading the past six months of Opinions from the Supreme Court.

    Now, aside from the fact That Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor, are obviously too profoundly ignorant, incompetent, and ideological to sit the court, the rest of the court’s opinions are:
    (a) narrow
    (b) technical
    (c) and demanding responsibility from the legislature – ending the left’s tradition of lawfare to bypass the people and their legislatures by inventing rights on one hand authority on the other.
    In other words – this is good law.

    Now, we do need to clean the court of the three nitwits. But and if so, it would be possible for the court, over a decade or so, to clean up the mess the prior courts allowed during the lawfare-heyday of the 1960s. And we can all thank the Federalist Society for their decades of work in making this quality of court possible.

    On Recent Rulings:

    1) CORNER POST: the Corner Post ruling was extremely narrow and technical and suppressed irresponsibility of the bureaucracy (regulators) to circumvent the legislature by art and artifice by claiming defense by a statute of limitations regardless of when the harm was incurred, and, it was possible for the plaintiff to take action.
    OPINION: while technical it’s a rather easy decision for the court and is a continuation of the court’s objective of restoring accountability to the legislature and depriving the bureaucracy from legislation without authority from the representatives of the people.

    2) TRUMP: The Trump ruling was not only narrow but a codification of an ‘ unwritten law’ dating back to the founders: Presidents must be immune from criminal prosecution for their acts as president or they may not take actions necessary as president in the face of uncertainty and risk. HOWEVER, this ruling does not render them immune from murder, theft, etc as a private citizen external to their role as president (murdering your wife, raping an intern, or embezzling funds, for example), AND it does not render them immune from impeachment. The left has no respect for reciprocity sovereignty, rule of law, and only power, so this codification of the customary law has been a long time coming. Nothing new here. I expected this ruling.
    ALSO, regarding Trump’s felony: there is no way this will stand the supreme court. (a) it’s a misdemeanor not a felony and classifying it so was an abuse of jurisprudence, (b) no one was harmed by Trump’s actions (c) it’s selective prosecution because no one else has been fined over $100 for the same crime.
    OPINION: My hope is that the Court specifically addresses the use of the lower courts for political purposes, abusing the law in doing so, and does so with predjudice so that it never happens again. it’s bad enough we tried to prosecute Clinton for consensual oral sex with an overweight intern most of us would kick out of bed. Prosecuting an ex-president for paying off a call girl, when both parties were ‘satisfied’ with the transaction is also out of hand. These are not high crimes and misdemeanors. They are personal moral misjudgements that men with moeny and power often easily seek given the high costs of seeking sexual release from wives while fending off tidal waves of opportunity. In other words, the Tiger Woods Defense is all that is necessary: “I’m human. I’m a man. And I’m Tiger Woods. At some point you know, you just can’t resist.” This is the male equivalent of the pass we give to women over their reckless emotionality and pervasive evasion of responsibility. So, good for the gander, good for the goose so to speak.

    (Micro Lesson: The etymology of ‘plaintiff’ is french ‘plaint’ (complaining) to middle english ‘plaintif’ filing a complaint in a court.)

    3) Moody v. NetChoice, LLC: The Court, not so politely I might add, in very simple and clear language, stated that neither the fifth nor the eleventh Circuit thought more deeply about the matter than what their common sense at the moment (not being very good common sense at that) amounted to, and returned the cases to the courts in what I would consider a disciplinary prose. First amendement issues are quite complex because social media is far more difficult to regulate and far more powerful than speech, publications, radio, and television have been in the past. And given the rather obvious capture of media by political activists and ideologues, combined with the lack of accountability and rapidity of spread of nonsense on social media, means we need a solution to both problems not just social media. And social media solution will also solve the major media problem. And the court is looking for lower courts to produce arguments of sufficient quality OR of sufficient undecidability, that the higher court or the legislature may provide clarification.
    OPINION: the quality of our legislatures is not sufficient to solve this question and the high court and it’s officers and ‘serfs’ so to speak are so. If the court maintains present discipline, I expect them to issue a narrow ruling that clarifies the matter AND suggests (or demands) a solution from the legislature. This is the optimum solution for any court decision: explain the legal issues and throw it back to the legislature for a decision. Unfortunately, while my work on constitutional reform includes this provision, the present constitution does not ‘close the loop’ and as such too much lands on the court’s plate and this opens the door for lawfare.

    More as I work my way through the opinions.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-05 21:07:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809333388005826560

  • COMMENTS ON RECENT SUPREME COURT RULINGS First day back from having a cold or fl

    COMMENTS ON RECENT SUPREME COURT RULINGS
    First day back from having a cold or flu or whatever I picked up on the plane. I can’t really work yet, but at least I can read. And so I’m reading the past six months of Opinions from the Supreme Court.

    Now, aside from the fact That Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor, are obviously too profoundly ignorant, incompetent, and ideological to sit the court, the rest of the court’s opinions are:
    (a) narrow
    (b) technical
    (c) and demanding responsibility from the legislature – ending the left’s tradition of lawfare to bypass the people and their legislatures by inventing rights on one hand authority on the other.
    In other words – this is good law.

    Now, we do need to clean the court of the three nitwits. But and if so, it would be possible for the court, over a decade or so, to clean up the mess the prior courts allowed during the lawfare-heyday of the 1960s. And we can all thank the Federalist Society for their decades of work in making this quality of court possible.

    On Recent Rulings:

    1) CORNER POST: the Corner Post ruling was extremely narrow and technical and suppressed irresponsibility of the bureaucracy (regulators) to circumvent the legislature by art and artifice by claiming defense by a statute of limitations regardless of when the harm was incurred, and, it was possible for the plaintiff to take action.
    OPINION: while technical it’s a rather easy decision for the court and is a continuation of the court’s objective of restoring accountability to the legislature and depriving the bureaucracy from legislation without authority from the representatives of the people.

    2) TRUMP: The Trump ruling was not only narrow but a codification of an ‘ unwritten law’ dating back to the founders: Presidents must be immune from criminal prosecution for their acts as president or they may not take actions necessary as president in the face of uncertainty and risk. HOWEVER, this ruling does not render them immune from murder, theft, etc as a private citizen external to their role as president (murdering your wife, raping an intern, or embezzling funds, for example), AND it does not render them immune from impeachment. The left has no respect for reciprocity sovereignty, rule of law, and only power, so this codification of the customary law has been a long time coming. Nothing new here. I expected this ruling.
    ALSO, regarding Trump’s felony: there is no way this will stand the supreme court. (a) it’s a misdemeanor not a felony and classifying it so was an abuse of jurisprudence, (b) no one was harmed by Trump’s actions (c) it’s selective prosecution because no one else has been fined over $100 for the same crime.
    OPINION: My hope is that the Court specifically addresses the use of the lower courts for political purposes, abusing the law in doing so, and does so with predjudice so that it never happens again. it’s bad enough we tried to prosecute Clinton for consensual oral sex with an overweight intern most of us would kick out of bed. Prosecuting an ex-president for paying off a call girl, when both parties were ‘satisfied’ with the transaction is also out of hand. These are not high crimes and misdemeanors. They are personal moral misjudgements that men with moeny and power often easily seek given the high costs of seeking sexual release from wives while fending off tidal waves of opportunity. In other words, the Tiger Woods Defense is all that is necessary: “I’m human. I’m a man. And I’m Tiger Woods. At some point you know, you just can’t resist.” This is the male equivalent of the pass we give to women over their reckless emotionality and pervasive evasion of responsibility. So, good for the gander, good for the goose so to speak.

    (Micro Lesson: The etymology of ‘plaintiff’ is french ‘plaint’ (complaining) to middle english ‘plaintif’ filing a complaint in a court.)

    3) Moody v. NetChoice, LLC: The Court, not so politely I might add, in very simple and clear language, stated that neither the fifth nor the eleventh Circuit thought more deeply about the matter than what their common sense at the moment (not being very good common sense at that) amounted to, and returned the cases to the courts in what I would consider a disciplinary prose. First amendement issues are quite complex because social media is far more difficult to regulate and far more powerful than speech, publications, radio, and television have been in the past. And given the rather obvious capture of media by political activists and ideologues, combined with the lack of accountability and rapidity of spread of nonsense on social media, means we need a solution to both problems not just social media. And social media solution will also solve the major media problem. And the court is looking for lower courts to produce arguments of sufficient quality OR of sufficient undecidability, that the higher court or the legislature may provide clarification.
    OPINION: the quality of our legislatures is not sufficient to solve this question and the high court and it’s officers and ‘serfs’ so to speak are so. If the court maintains present discipline, I expect them to issue a narrow ruling that clarifies the matter AND suggests (or demands) a solution from the legislature. This is the optimum solution for any court decision: explain the legal issues and throw it back to the legislature for a decision. Unfortunately, while my work on constitutional reform includes this provision, the present constitution does not ‘close the loop’ and as such too much lands on the court’s plate and this opens the door for lawfare.

    More as I work my way through the opinions.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-05 21:07:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809326948289769473

  • You don’t know this, but as far as I know I’m the leading theorist in overcoming

    You don’t know this, but as far as I know I’m the leading theorist in overcoming the failure of philosophers to define science and the scientific method – by defining it and explaining it. I’ve never seen anyone both understand my work and disagree: science consists of the process of producing testimony that incrementally discovers first principles (causality).

    Some people ( and I understand them) are raised in a religious tradition, and maintain the moral intuitions they were indoctrinated into, while granting superiority to the evidence of causality (realism and naturalism) find no conflict between those moral rules and natural laws.

    Conversely, I can quite easily explain why you err in your obsessions. And why all those like you require a childish need for certainty that you can ascertain, instead of maturing into an adult need for actionability while maintaining both humility, skepticism, and optimism that one’s konwledge will improve.

    You demonstrate neigher humility, nor skepticism, nor optimism despite the evidence that the method of producing testimony that europeans developed in court in matters of dispute and extended to all experience outside of court – which we call ‘science’ – has reduced your supernatural lies to mere children’s parables.

    Reply addressees: @Schwall_ins_All @therealbaldtim @sbrandmusic @meharmsen @RichardDawkins

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-02 15:59:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1808168563925979136

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1808162806870458802