Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • MATHINESS, SCIENTISM, AND IDEALISM vs OPERATIONALISM Many people here scientism

    MATHINESS, SCIENTISM, AND IDEALISM vs OPERATIONALISM

    Many people here scientism or mathiness and hear profundity. I hear a pseudoscientific priesthood talking just like you hear theologians or rationalists (or continental philosophers) speaking.

    Mathiness is actually the origin of the failing of western philosophy until the stoics. Pythagoras, Aristotle, Zeno’s genius was undermined by Plato’s catastrophe and Augustine and Pauls’ crime against western civilization, and abraham and muhammad’s transformation of persian and egyptian mythology into a false history and immoral laws – a crime against humanity. Unequalled until Rousseau, Kant, Boaz, Marx, Freud, cantor, mises, rothbard, and Strauss all repeated the process of fictionalism – this time in pseudoscientific, pseudo rational(philosophical), and pseudo historical prose.

    I spend most of my time criticizing economics as a means of restoring empirical law.

    But yesterday I happened across an interesting bit of ‘scientism’ that was ‘scienticsm’ rather than science, because it is dependent upon mathiness.

    Most of what I see in physics today, and most of what I see in frankly all the sciences, whenever someone explains relationships rather than explains transformations – is mathiness.

    Idealism, mathiness, scientism are all failures to speak in the language of truth:

    Operations.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 13:57:00 UTC

  • MATHINESS, SCIENTISM, AND IDEALISM vs OPERATIONALISM Many people here scientism

    MATHINESS, SCIENTISM, AND IDEALISM vs OPERATIONALISM Many people here scientism or mathiness and hear profundity. I hear a pseudoscientific priesthood talking just like you hear theologians or rationalists (or continental philosophers) speaking. Mathiness is actually the origin of the failing of western philosophy until the stoics. Pythagoras, Aristotle, Zeno’s genius was undermined by Plato’s catastrophe and Augustine and Pauls’ crime against western civilization, and abraham and muhammad’s transformation of persian and egyptian mythology into a false history and immoral laws – a crime against humanity. Unequalled until Rousseau, Kant, Boaz, Marx, Freud, cantor, mises, rothbard, and Strauss all repeated the process of fictionalism – this time in pseudoscientific, pseudo rational(philosophical), and pseudo historical prose. I spend most of my time criticizing economics as a means of restoring empirical law. But yesterday I happened across an interesting bit of ‘scientism’ that was ‘scienticsm’ rather than science, because it is dependent upon mathiness. Most of what I see in physics today, and most of what I see in frankly all the sciences, whenever someone explains relationships rather than explains transformations – is mathiness. Idealism, mathiness, scientism are all failures to speak in the language of truth: Operations.

  • MATHINESS, SCIENTISM, AND IDEALISM vs OPERATIONALISM Many people here scientism

    MATHINESS, SCIENTISM, AND IDEALISM vs OPERATIONALISM Many people here scientism or mathiness and hear profundity. I hear a pseudoscientific priesthood talking just like you hear theologians or rationalists (or continental philosophers) speaking. Mathiness is actually the origin of the failing of western philosophy until the stoics. Pythagoras, Aristotle, Zeno’s genius was undermined by Plato’s catastrophe and Augustine and Pauls’ crime against western civilization, and abraham and muhammad’s transformation of persian and egyptian mythology into a false history and immoral laws – a crime against humanity. Unequalled until Rousseau, Kant, Boaz, Marx, Freud, cantor, mises, rothbard, and Strauss all repeated the process of fictionalism – this time in pseudoscientific, pseudo rational(philosophical), and pseudo historical prose. I spend most of my time criticizing economics as a means of restoring empirical law. But yesterday I happened across an interesting bit of ‘scientism’ that was ‘scienticsm’ rather than science, because it is dependent upon mathiness. Most of what I see in physics today, and most of what I see in frankly all the sciences, whenever someone explains relationships rather than explains transformations – is mathiness. Idealism, mathiness, scientism are all failures to speak in the language of truth: Operations.

  • THE ANSWER TO THE SPREAD OF PROPAGANDA AND MYTHOS OVER TRUTH AND EMPIRICISM If y

    THE ANSWER TO THE SPREAD OF PROPAGANDA AND MYTHOS OVER TRUTH AND EMPIRICISM

    If you study the evolution and spread of technology, then on the other hand, study linguistics, comparative law, comparative literature, and comparative religion, you fairly quickly understand that certain methods of persuasion are more truthful (recipes, procedures, operations, designs), and some are allegorical (history and literature), and some are loaded, framed, and suggestive (mythology), and some are deceptive (scriptural religion, propaganda, pseudo-rationalism/continental philosophy, pseudoscience, and pseudo-mathematics).

    So to understand why these deceptive mythologies spread through the underclass, while technical spread in the middle class, and legal and empirical spread in the upper class during the peak centuries of cross cultural exposure via greek writing, roman roads and shipping lanes, we simply need to understand the numbers in underclass, middle class, and upper class vary greatly between western, anatolian, semitic, and north african populations. (With the same iq distributions today).

    One can rule by truth sovereignty, reciprocity, and jury, and construct a civilization out of markets, if and only if the people within that civilization are capable of majority survival by market means, using truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, contract, jury and markets.

    Primitive people practice familialism or tribalism (extended familialism), and people who advance practice nationalism. If they become too greedy they practice empire and cosmopolitanism and they are bred out of existence rather quickly.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 11:30:00 UTC

  • The Answer To The Spread Of Propaganda And Mythos Over Truth And Empiricism

    If you study the evolution and spread of technology, then on the other hand, study linguistics, comparative law, comparative literature, and comparative religion, you fairly quickly understand that certain methods of persuasion are more truthful (recipes, procedures, operations, designs), and some are allegorical (history and literature), and some are loaded, framed, and suggestive (mythology), and some are deceptive (scriptural religion, propaganda, pseudo-rationalism/continental philosophy, pseudoscience, and pseudo-mathematics). So to understand why these deceptive mythologies spread through the underclass, while technical spread in the middle class, and legal and empirical spread in the upper class during the peak centuries of cross cultural exposure via greek writing, roman roads and shipping lanes, we simply need to understand the numbers in underclass, middle class, and upper class vary greatly between western, anatolian, semitic, and north african populations. (With the same iq distributions today). One can rule by truth sovereignty, reciprocity, and jury, and construct a civilization out of markets, if and only if the people within that civilization are capable of majority survival by market means, using truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, contract, jury and markets. Primitive people practice familialism or tribalism (extended familialism), and people who advance practice nationalism. If they become too greedy they practice empire and cosmopolitanism and they are bred out of existence rather quickly.

  • The Answer To The Spread Of Propaganda And Mythos Over Truth And Empiricism

    If you study the evolution and spread of technology, then on the other hand, study linguistics, comparative law, comparative literature, and comparative religion, you fairly quickly understand that certain methods of persuasion are more truthful (recipes, procedures, operations, designs), and some are allegorical (history and literature), and some are loaded, framed, and suggestive (mythology), and some are deceptive (scriptural religion, propaganda, pseudo-rationalism/continental philosophy, pseudoscience, and pseudo-mathematics). So to understand why these deceptive mythologies spread through the underclass, while technical spread in the middle class, and legal and empirical spread in the upper class during the peak centuries of cross cultural exposure via greek writing, roman roads and shipping lanes, we simply need to understand the numbers in underclass, middle class, and upper class vary greatly between western, anatolian, semitic, and north african populations. (With the same iq distributions today). One can rule by truth sovereignty, reciprocity, and jury, and construct a civilization out of markets, if and only if the people within that civilization are capable of majority survival by market means, using truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, contract, jury and markets. Primitive people practice familialism or tribalism (extended familialism), and people who advance practice nationalism. If they become too greedy they practice empire and cosmopolitanism and they are bred out of existence rather quickly.

  • What Is Your Personal Philosophy As It Relates To Ethics And Metaphysics? Why?

    This is not so much a philosophy as the results of science that I can no longer deny, and so I live according to the science – in large part because it is advantageous.

    1. We are an expensive life form. Particularly our brains.
    2. We must acquire, and we acquire at cost to ourselves.
    3. All our emotions are nothing but reflections in state of that which we plan to, are in the process of, or have acquired an interest.
    4. Cooperation is logarithmically more productive than any action an individual can take, and therefore we must cooperate to survive. (Possibly as much as ten thousand times as productive.)
    5. People are purely rational, not moral or immoral but amoral: they cheat and try to acquire disproportionately from cooperation, they free ride, steal from, and prey upon others. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment of cheaters in all walks of life, even at high personal cost: to prevent defectors from cheating.
    6. The optimum algorithm (really) for developing cooperation is to exhaust every opportunity for cooperation even from cheaters. They almost always come around, because it is always an advantage to come around. This was the entire message of christianity which was lost in the dogma. But it’s just science.
    7. All our speech is merely a dance of negotiation so that we may create opportunities to acquire, do acquire, or preserve what we acquire. All of it is just signaling.
    8. We are entirely incognizant of these behaviors because it is evolutionarily disadvantageous for us to be intuitively honest, honest with ourselves, and honest with others. This is the same reason we have many cognitive, social, and probabilistic biases in our genes. To keep us going when evidence would overwhelm us.
    9. Most of the joy in life is playing this set of word games, cooperative games, and acquisition games with others so that we all acquire what we want as best we can without making others avoid us so that we can’t acquire what we want and need. This is why people commit suicide when they are lonely, and do not commit suicide when they are not.
    10. Therefor the only rule of cooperation, of morality, and of law, is reciprocity: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary cooperation with each other, and the only immoral actions are those that violate that moral rule by free riding, parasitism, theft, or predation. And that is why reciprocity is the basis of all traditional laws (and why it is not the basis of legislation).

    This little list is the answer to nearly all of metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, sociology, ethics, and politics.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-personal-philosophy-as-it-relates-to-ethics-and-metaphysics-Why

  • How Do Current British History Textbooks Portray The American Revolutionaries? Are They Considered To Be Rebels And Traitors To The Empire, Or As Enlightened Men Who Fought For A Just Cause Against An Unfair And Despotic Government?

    The British wanted to (rightly) recover the high cost of defending the colonies – the recent war had nearly emptied the treasury – and the colonies didn’t want to pay for it. This process escalated to the point of civil (revolutionary) war. This was extremely foolish for both parties, as creating a house of the colonies would have allowed Britain to govern the entire world at lower profit margins, but suppress her ability to maximize current revenues. Our ancestors in the colonies had governed well on their own, and saw europeans as war-mongering greedy troublemakers. But the cost of maintaining the power to expand and manage the empire and drag mankind out of backwardness was expensive, and The Crown needed to feed the machine.

    In other words, the americans (my ancestors and maybe yours) were wrong, and the british were just over confident that the peasantry could be that ungrateful.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-current-British-history-textbooks-portray-the-American-revolutionaries-Are-they-considered-to-be-rebels-and-traitors-to-the-empire-or-as-enlightened-men-who-fought-for-a-just-cause-against-an-unfair-and

  • If You Have An Iq Lower Than 130, Can You Trust Your Own Thoughts?

    Hmmm…. Interesting question. Can you trust your own thoughts? Does intelligence mean you can trust your own thoughts?

    I have an answer for you that you’ll find insightful.

    1. Intelligence generally translates to time required to learn – although below somewhere in the 80’s learning even the most trivial of sequences appears nearly impossible. And below the mid 90’s begins to become prohibitively costly upon those that teach. 10% of people are impossible to teach, and nearly half of people are costly to teach. Hence the future problem of employment.
    2. Intelligence above 105 is largely reducible to a learning curve. at 105 or so you can learn from instructions, repair machines, and express yourself logically. About every 7–10 points or so higher, it’s easier to learn from increasingly abstract (less obviously related) bits of information. Around 115 learn on your own. Around 125 invent new machines. Around 135 understand complex relations and synthesize them for others. Around 145 invent and reorganize existing ideas.

      Above that I have not seen anything meaningful other than the ability to construct longer denser sentences (I cannot speak in long narrations like Chomsky, and I cannot grasp and translate ideas as fast as Terence Tau. And I have also seen the opposite, which is a tendency to place too much value on intuitions (some people who shall remain nameless), and given that I specialize in identifying pseudoscience, there are a vast number of theorists in many fields who do not know about that which they speak.
    3. Those higher than you are not so much smarter as we they had more ‘time’ to create vast networks of relations (associations) – so the time required to identify a new pattern is shorter. The only way I know to improve your “demonstrated” intelligence in every day life is to be well read (possess more general knowledge) in multiple fields, and be lucky to have high conscientiousness as a personality trait. (All fields develop systemic falsehoods, so cross field knowledge is necessary).
    4. Those that are nearly frightening (children), and born with extraordinary abilities are very rare but I think we are beginning to understand what makes them possible (in utero). And their abilities do not necessarily continue past maturity.
    5. People in the 130’s tend to specialize in synthesizing and communicating difficult ideas to those in the standard deviations below them, and you would find that most CEO’s are in the 130’s, just like a lot of professors are in the 140’s. This is why the ability to articulate your ideas and make use of vocabulary is such an extraordinary proxy for intelligence.
    6. So here is my suggestion no matter where you are on the spectrum: Assume you’re wrong until you can’t possible find an alternative. Because that’s actually what demonstrated intelligence means.
    7. So I want to reframe your question for you: there is NEVER A REASON to trust your thoughts, feelings, or intuitions for anything other than “ouch, that hurts”. Knowledge like evolution is the result of survival, not justification. No matter how good you think your reasoning, the only test of truth is survival against all odds.
    8. That’s what being smart means. Which was Socrates’ whole point.

    https://www.quora.com/If-you-have-an-IQ-lower-than-130-can-you-trust-your-own-thoughts

  • What Is Your Personal Philosophy As It Relates To Ethics And Metaphysics? Why?

    This is not so much a philosophy as the results of science that I can no longer deny, and so I live according to the science – in large part because it is advantageous.

    1. We are an expensive life form. Particularly our brains.
    2. We must acquire, and we acquire at cost to ourselves.
    3. All our emotions are nothing but reflections in state of that which we plan to, are in the process of, or have acquired an interest.
    4. Cooperation is logarithmically more productive than any action an individual can take, and therefore we must cooperate to survive. (Possibly as much as ten thousand times as productive.)
    5. People are purely rational, not moral or immoral but amoral: they cheat and try to acquire disproportionately from cooperation, they free ride, steal from, and prey upon others. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment of cheaters in all walks of life, even at high personal cost: to prevent defectors from cheating.
    6. The optimum algorithm (really) for developing cooperation is to exhaust every opportunity for cooperation even from cheaters. They almost always come around, because it is always an advantage to come around. This was the entire message of christianity which was lost in the dogma. But it’s just science.
    7. All our speech is merely a dance of negotiation so that we may create opportunities to acquire, do acquire, or preserve what we acquire. All of it is just signaling.
    8. We are entirely incognizant of these behaviors because it is evolutionarily disadvantageous for us to be intuitively honest, honest with ourselves, and honest with others. This is the same reason we have many cognitive, social, and probabilistic biases in our genes. To keep us going when evidence would overwhelm us.
    9. Most of the joy in life is playing this set of word games, cooperative games, and acquisition games with others so that we all acquire what we want as best we can without making others avoid us so that we can’t acquire what we want and need. This is why people commit suicide when they are lonely, and do not commit suicide when they are not.
    10. Therefor the only rule of cooperation, of morality, and of law, is reciprocity: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary cooperation with each other, and the only immoral actions are those that violate that moral rule by free riding, parasitism, theft, or predation. And that is why reciprocity is the basis of all traditional laws (and why it is not the basis of legislation).

    This little list is the answer to nearly all of metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, sociology, ethics, and politics.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-personal-philosophy-as-it-relates-to-ethics-and-metaphysics-Why