Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE URBAN AREA AS GENERATOR OF SCHIZOPHRENIA (AND THEREFORE LEFTISM) A particula

    THE URBAN AREA AS GENERATOR OF SCHIZOPHRENIA (AND THEREFORE LEFTISM)

    A particularly stable and replicable finding has been the association between living in an urban environment and the development of schizophrenia, even after factors such as drug use, ethnic group and size of social group have been controlled for.[153] A recent study of 4.4 million men and women in Sweden found a 68%–77% increased risk of diagnosed psychosis for people living in the most urbanized environments, a significant proportion of which is likely to be described as schizophrenia.[154]

    The effect does not appear to be due to a higher incidence of obstetric complications in urban environments.[155] The risk increases with the number of years and degree of urban living in childhood and adolescence, suggesting that constant, cumulative, or repeated exposures during upbringing occurring more frequently in urbanized areas are responsible for the association.[156]

    Various possible explanations for the effect have been judged unlikely based on the nature of the findings, including infectious causes or a generic stress effect. It is thought to interact with genetic dispositions and, since there appears to be nonrandom variation even across different neighborhoods, and an independent association with social isolation, it has been proposed that the degree of “social capital” (e.g. degree of mutual trust, bonding and safety in neighborhoods) can exert a developmental impact on children growing up in these environments.[157]

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-12 22:46:00 UTC

  • FOR INTELLIGENCE TO EXIST IT MUST DEFEAT TIME From the Universe to the particles

    FOR INTELLIGENCE TO EXIST IT MUST DEFEAT TIME

    From the Universe to the particles, to elements, to DNA, to every idea in your head formed because it can form, and if it can form, and given enough opportunity, all that is possible to form will eventually become probable to form, and probably and therefore certain to form.

    The purpose of intelligence is to defeat time. otherwise there is no value of intelligence.

    If there was some divine being he has chosen NOT to defeat time, and therefore eliminated the only reason for intelligence. So why would an intelligent being pick the dumbest possible method requiring zero intelligence with which to create man – or anything.

    Ignorance of information is not the same as absence of information. Whether we know something or not is a measure of our ignorance.

    Why are so many humans afraid there is no pack-leader?

    Why is it that if the most parsimonious example is simply ‘really big numbers and really long times, eventually explore all opportunities for conservation of energy’?

    My standard of ‘fully human’ is that of fully transcending the animal.

    If you are not fully human then you will find excuses for satisfying the animal impulse just like a dog must circle three times before it lay’s down, or a cat sniff it’s food before it eats – and if it can’t it will starve.

    One must transcend the beast to evolve into the human. Once one is fully human one can transcend the body with reason, knowledge, and instrumentation.

    The beast, ignorance, and the capture of energy are all that prevent us from being gods.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-12 19:29:00 UTC

  • The Damage of Cantor’s Frame Depends upon Which Problem You”re Trying to Solve

    So cantor’s argument is regressive because it reversed the trend toward historizing math and merging math and science. And it provided a generation with excuses to restore platonism. And it contributed to the misdirection of philosophy and logic in the 20th century just when we needed the opposite. So, you know, I am criticizing the tendency of abrahamists to make similar methaphysical fictions and cause damage by externality. So if you are only concerned with ‘meaning” then cantor’s fictionalism is a suppose a fairy tale that explains pairing-off (one to one correspondence) as a means of testing extremely large sets. If you are concerned with truth, then cantor is a fictionalist, and is leading to the confusion of generations of minds. If you are concerned with platonism and abrahamism as the primary means by which western civilization was destroyed in the ancient and modern worlds, then Cantor like Marx, Freud, Boaz, and Adorno is a half-liar undermining the very secret of western civilization: words are sacred, promise is sacred, and by creating moral hazards with language all the ‘liars’ contributed to the catastrophe of the present.

  • The Damage of Cantor’s Frame Depends upon Which Problem You”re Trying to Solve

    So cantor’s argument is regressive because it reversed the trend toward historizing math and merging math and science. And it provided a generation with excuses to restore platonism. And it contributed to the misdirection of philosophy and logic in the 20th century just when we needed the opposite. So, you know, I am criticizing the tendency of abrahamists to make similar methaphysical fictions and cause damage by externality. So if you are only concerned with ‘meaning” then cantor’s fictionalism is a suppose a fairy tale that explains pairing-off (one to one correspondence) as a means of testing extremely large sets. If you are concerned with truth, then cantor is a fictionalist, and is leading to the confusion of generations of minds. If you are concerned with platonism and abrahamism as the primary means by which western civilization was destroyed in the ancient and modern worlds, then Cantor like Marx, Freud, Boaz, and Adorno is a half-liar undermining the very secret of western civilization: words are sacred, promise is sacred, and by creating moral hazards with language all the ‘liars’ contributed to the catastrophe of the present.

  • For Intelligence to Exist It Must Defeat Time

    From the Universe to the particles, to elements, to DNA, to every idea in your head formed because it can form, and if it can form, and given enough opportunity, all that is possible to form will eventually become probable to form, and probably and therefore certain to form. The purpose of intelligence is to defeat time. otherwise there is no value of intelligence. If there was some divine being he has chosen NOT to defeat time, and therefore eliminated the only reason for intelligence. So why would an intelligent being pick the dumbest possible method requiring zero intelligence with which to create man – or anything. Ignorance of information is not the same as absence of information. Whether we know something or not is a measure of our ignorance. Why are so many humans afraid there is no pack-leader? Why is it that if the most parsimonious example is simply ‘really big numbers and really long times, eventually explore all opportunities for conservation of energy’? My standard of ‘fully human’ is that of fully transcending the animal. If you are not fully human then you will find excuses for satisfying the animal impulse just like a dog must circle three times before it lay’s down, or a cat sniff it’s food before it eats – and if it can’t it will starve. One must transcend the beast to evolve into the human. Once one is fully human one can transcend the body with reason, knowledge, and instrumentation. The beast, ignorance, and the capture of energy are all that prevent us from being gods.

  • For Intelligence to Exist It Must Defeat Time

    From the Universe to the particles, to elements, to DNA, to every idea in your head formed because it can form, and if it can form, and given enough opportunity, all that is possible to form will eventually become probable to form, and probably and therefore certain to form. The purpose of intelligence is to defeat time. otherwise there is no value of intelligence. If there was some divine being he has chosen NOT to defeat time, and therefore eliminated the only reason for intelligence. So why would an intelligent being pick the dumbest possible method requiring zero intelligence with which to create man – or anything. Ignorance of information is not the same as absence of information. Whether we know something or not is a measure of our ignorance. Why are so many humans afraid there is no pack-leader? Why is it that if the most parsimonious example is simply ‘really big numbers and really long times, eventually explore all opportunities for conservation of energy’? My standard of ‘fully human’ is that of fully transcending the animal. If you are not fully human then you will find excuses for satisfying the animal impulse just like a dog must circle three times before it lay’s down, or a cat sniff it’s food before it eats – and if it can’t it will starve. One must transcend the beast to evolve into the human. Once one is fully human one can transcend the body with reason, knowledge, and instrumentation. The beast, ignorance, and the capture of energy are all that prevent us from being gods.

  • The Urban Area as Generator of Schizophrenia (and Therefore Leftism)

    A particularly stable and replicable finding has been the association between living in an urban environment and the development of schizophrenia, even after factors such as drug use, ethnic group and size of social group have been controlled for.[153] A recent study of 4.4 million men and women in Sweden found a 68%–77% increased risk of diagnosed psychosis for people living in the most urbanized environments, a significant proportion of which is likely to be described as schizophrenia.[154] The effect does not appear to be due to a higher incidence of obstetric complications in urban environments.[155] The risk increases with the number of years and degree of urban living in childhood and adolescence, suggesting that constant, cumulative, or repeated exposures during upbringing occurring more frequently in urbanized areas are responsible for the association.[156] Various possible explanations for the effect have been judged unlikely based on the nature of the findings, including infectious causes or a generic stress effect. It is thought to interact with genetic dispositions and, since there appears to be nonrandom variation even across different neighborhoods, and an independent association with social isolation, it has been proposed that the degree of “social capital” (e.g. degree of mutual trust, bonding and safety in neighborhoods) can exert a developmental impact on children growing up in these environments.[157]

  • IS OBJECTIVE MORALITY POSSIBLE? HOW DO WE KNOW? It’s actually pretty easy: 1) Em

    IS OBJECTIVE MORALITY POSSIBLE? HOW DO WE KNOW?

    It’s actually pretty easy:

    1) Empirically, (in-group) law evolved everywhere using a test of reciprocity. Even norms demand reciprocity. All that differs is the local organization of rights and obligations that produce various forms of reciprocity under various group evolutionary strategies.

    2) Empirically, (out-group) international law, that is insulated by differences as a compromise between differences is reducible to reciprocity.

    3) Logically, (internal consistency) all questions of conflict are in fact decidable by the test of reciprocity, and it is the only decidability that exists that I know of.

    4) Scientifically (Axelrod) (operationally), no organism can both cooperate (produce outsized returns), and not (a) preserve defection (cheating), and (b) require reciprocity (prevent parasitism), and (c) buy options on cooperation (invest) to incentivize cooperation, and (d) practice altruistic punishment (costly punishment) in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate without going extinct.

    So:

    0 – Parties must be able to negotiate a contract for cooperation and remember success or failure for cooperation to exist. (We cannot cooperate with animals. They aren’t conscious enough to do so, or to hold to commitments.)

    1 – Objective morality (reciprocity) is in fact ‘reciprocity’.

    2 – Moral norms (networks of reciprocity)

    3 – Moral intuitions ( individual intuition of reciprocity given one’s reproductive/survival needs)

    4 – Moral actions are limited to fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality.

    And

    1 – Restoration of reciprocity by forgiveness (investment in future forgiveness)

    2 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution

    3 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution and punishment

    4 – restoration of incentive for reciprocity by restitution and death.

    Ergo

    1 – one may take no action one may not perform restitution for.

    All of which pretty much are reflected in the common law of tort.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-11 14:55:00 UTC

  • THE INCOMMENSURABILITY OF EMOTIONAL VS INTELLECTUAL HONESTY We often Make the mi

    THE INCOMMENSURABILITY OF EMOTIONAL VS INTELLECTUAL HONESTY

    We often Make the mistake of assuming that all but a very small percentage practice intellectual honesty (or dishonesty) – or even are capable of it. Intellectual honesty requires extraordinary agency that is available only to a tiny fraction of the population.

    The majority are capable of and practice emotional honesty and dishonesty. And that is the best that they can manage.

    Cognitive solipsism is impossible for their majority of the heavily female biased to escape, just as cognitive autism is nearly impossible for our majority of the male biased to escape. The difference being that solipsism vs autism serve experiential and interpersonal vs empirical and political ends.

    We both use language, but because one is speaking emotively and experientially and the other empirically and inter-temporally, there is no communication occurring and no chance of reasoning occurring.

    Hence why it is almost always fruitless to debate with one another unless we possess the same agency.

    In the example, the woman who’s arguing is demonstrating 1) hyperbolic straw manning, 2) disapproval, shaming, gossiping rallying rather than consequentialism, 3) deep solipsism lacking reflection, 4) and R-selection bias so deeply pre-cognitive that judgement not possible because commensurability is not possible . … I won’t even continue.

    We must Love such people, and take their emotions at face value. But if we cannot debate intellectually honestly and empirically then we cannot debate at all. Emotions are merely expressions of preference, they are undecidable (and irrelevant).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 16:26:00 UTC

  • Faith and justification, and the use of faith and justification differs from the

    Faith and justification, and the use of faith and justification differs from the use of science and falsification.

    The former (justification) enforces priors and causes stagnation, the latter (falsification) defeats priors and causes evolution.

    I don’t make justifications or pragmatisms. I just solve for what’s true.

    If it’s true I ask if it’s existentially possible.

    If it’s possible I ask if its a rational choice.

    If it’s a rational choice I ask if it will be reciprocated, and if it will be reciprocated I as if it will produce externalities and be survivable under competition.

    I do my job as judge. That’s what I do.

    To persuade me that a theocratic solution is possible, you’d have to persuade me that (a) a bringing about a theocracy was existentially possible by some means, (b) that it was possible without dictatorship to impose it for enough generations that the theological decline (end) could be reversed, and (c) that the rules were in fact moral in practice, (d) that such moral rules didn’t produce damaging externalities, (e) that people in time, place, and circumstance would adopt them or institution them and demonstrate them, and (f) that such moral rules were a competitive advantage, and therefore survivable.

    I mean, if you can answer those questions I’ll say it’s a possibility. I don’t ‘support’ anything. Propositions are either true, operationally possible, and moral; or they’re contingently so in the face of competing propositions, or they’re nonsense.

    As far as I know no theology is possible when by all accounts aristotelianism (empiricism or ‘descriptivism’) has replaced theology, and continues to do so, and the only people who do otherwise are either aging out of the pool, or those with below the threshold (95) group IQ’s.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 15:13:00 UTC