Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Which Is A Bigger Problem In The Us Classism Or Racism?

    —-”Which is a bigger problem in the US classism or racism?”—

    Neither is a problem. Both are uncircumventable evolutionary, reproductive, social, economic, and political realities and necessities. Humans organize that is our principal ability, and our intelligence evolved only for the purpose of increasing the complexity of our cooperation – even across gender, family, clan, classes, tribes, nations(in the genetic sense), subraces, and races.

    The classes demonstrate different genetic, social, economic, and political abilities. Unfortunately everyone at the bottom quartile is six times as costly as everyone at the top two quartiles can compensate for.( the third quartile appears to be neutral or at least a tolerable loss.

    Those tribes, nations, subraces, and races unable to limit the reproduction of their underclasses (as have europeans and east asians through manorialism or extraordinary prosecution), or have expelled their underclasses (Ashkenazis) or have been able to concentrate sufficient capital to drag people out of permanent malthusian (population) and dysgenic(distribution) poverty.

    Those tribes, nations, subraces, and races unable to limit the reproduction of their underclasses, and who have not engaged in martial, juridical, or economic (manorialism), have ended up as the levant, india, southeast asia, and now south america, with underclasses so large that they cannot be organized into a voluntary organization of production capable of producing marketable goods.

    Worse, in the current era, as the low hanging fruit of petrochemical energy, mechanical technology, and now computational utility has been captured, likewise, labor has evaporated as a market good, mechanical capital has dramatically depreciated as market good, and at present calculation labor (what we call clerical and white collar work) is depreciating as a market good. And without markets to provide information to us, we cannot cooperate at scale. And there are few if any multipliers on service provision.

    All technology can be implemented quickly and easily and the marginal competitive advantage between groups eliminated.

    So as the world continues to adopt the inventions of western civilization – not the least of which is Aristotelian (scientific) reasoning, and the Anglo (Germanic) natural law of torts, and the Italian(Templar) method of banking, the relative standard of living of peoples will decline, because the only competitive advantage a population has, is genetic.

    The primary competitive advantage that does not produce regression into Malthusian and dysgenic poverty is genes. And the difference in one standard deviation is so profound it is the HIGHEST POSSIBLE RETURN for any group – as well as for all mankind.

    The data is in. The 20th century experiment with social economic and political pseudoscience is over. We misspent that capital on reversing at least 1300 years of improving human genetic, cultural, and institutional capital.

    There are three known magic bullets. A battery with the energy density of gasoline. The reduction of the size of the underclass through one child policies for the underclasses, and the development of artificial general intelligence that means he with the most capital and the lowest population wins.

    The individual human is quickly approaching not only malthusian and genetic equilibrium but political, economic, social, damage. We outran the productivity of nature and resorted to farming. We outran the productivity of farming and turned to industry. We out ran the productivity of industry and turned to information. There is nowhere to go beyond information, and as such the only gains are to be obtained from the reduction of negative human capital.

    Via-negativa in all things at scale. Once you maximize returns on any set of operations, the only improvement possible is to remove costs and defects.

    More is not better. Fewer people with more, is better than more people with less.

    That’s unavoidable.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Which-is-a-bigger-problem-in-the-US-classism-or-racism

  • What Does Logic Mean And What Are Its Limits?

    The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states. The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations. All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification). One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law. The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods. Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t. Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations. Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations. Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise. Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit. Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services. -Curt Doolittle -The Propertarian Institute – Kiev Ukraine (PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))

  • WHAT DOES LOGIC MEAN AND WHAT ARE ITS LIMITS? The human facility we call logic c

    WHAT DOES LOGIC MEAN AND WHAT ARE ITS LIMITS?

    The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states.

    The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations.

    All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification).

    One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law.

    The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods.

    Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t.

    Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations.

    Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations.

    Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise.

    Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit.

    Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services.

    -Curt Doolittle

    -The Propertarian Institute

    – Kiev Ukraine

    (PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-25 05:19:00 UTC

  • What Does Logic Mean And What Are Its Limits?

    The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states. The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations. All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification). One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law. The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods. Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t. Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations. Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations. Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise. Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit. Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services. -Curt Doolittle -The Propertarian Institute – Kiev Ukraine (PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))

  • THE NEXT AMERICAN REVOLUTION The unification of north and south in the declarati

    THE NEXT AMERICAN REVOLUTION

    The unification of north and south in the declaration and constitution was always contentious. We had our first attempt at secession just after the war of 1812. Our next in the civil war. vast immigration and the depression that followed, disunity. The world wars created unity. The marxist/postmodern insurgency restored the original demands for secession. The reason for the original failure was fear of re-conquest by europe. The reason for the civil war failure was the profitability of the westward expansion and the threat that the industrialized north would be reduced to a marginalized minority and the west and the south the majority – and slavery is merely the primary driver by which that economic and political reality was perpetuated. The 1960s repeated the process. ANd today we are going thru it again.

    The difference today is we are no longer fighting over the profitability of westward expansion, but the profitability of homogeneous territorial peoples and heterogeneous. Or stated differently “the profits from immigration as a vehicle for selling off a conquered conteintent, and the profits of selling them consumer goods, is now neutralized by the world having caught up to western technology and institutions. What the world cannot catch up to is western demographics and culture. Because as far as I know no other people are capable of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-23 14:46:00 UTC

  • The Next American Revolution

    The unification of north and south in the declaration and constitution was always contentious. We had our first attempt at secession just after the war of 1812. Our next in the civil war. vast immigration and the depression that followed, disunity. The world wars created unity. The marxist/postmodern insurgency restored the original demands for secession. The reason for the original failure was fear of re-conquest by europe. The reason for the civil war failure was the profitability of the westward expansion and the threat that the industrialized north would be reduced to a marginalized minority and the west and the south the majority – and slavery is merely the primary driver by which that economic and political reality was perpetuated. The 1960s repeated the process. ANd today we are going thru it again. The difference today is we are no longer fighting over the profitability of westward expansion, but the profitability of homogeneous territorial peoples and heterogeneous. Or stated differently “the profits from immigration as a vehicle for selling off a conquered conteintent, and the profits of selling them consumer goods, is now neutralized by the world having caught up to western technology and institutions. What the world cannot catch up to is western demographics and culture. Because as far as I know no other people are capable of it.

  • The Next American Revolution

    The unification of north and south in the declaration and constitution was always contentious. We had our first attempt at secession just after the war of 1812. Our next in the civil war. vast immigration and the depression that followed, disunity. The world wars created unity. The marxist/postmodern insurgency restored the original demands for secession. The reason for the original failure was fear of re-conquest by europe. The reason for the civil war failure was the profitability of the westward expansion and the threat that the industrialized north would be reduced to a marginalized minority and the west and the south the majority – and slavery is merely the primary driver by which that economic and political reality was perpetuated. The 1960s repeated the process. ANd today we are going thru it again. The difference today is we are no longer fighting over the profitability of westward expansion, but the profitability of homogeneous territorial peoples and heterogeneous. Or stated differently “the profits from immigration as a vehicle for selling off a conquered conteintent, and the profits of selling them consumer goods, is now neutralized by the world having caught up to western technology and institutions. What the world cannot catch up to is western demographics and culture. Because as far as I know no other people are capable of it.

  • SYMPTOMS OF THE SPECTRUM (note that I don’t leap to the conclusion that aspie pr

    SYMPTOMS OF THE SPECTRUM

    (note that I don’t leap to the conclusion that aspie prose is nonsense. it’s not.)

    —‘…just gossip (about Langan)’—

    Um. Hmmm….

    Symptoms of ‘being on the Autism spectrum’ which physically means ‘possessing and extreme, male, compartmentalized brain structure’, which produces certain speech and reasoning traits (just as an extreme female, integrated brain structure produces certain speech and reasoning traits).

    These equate to differences not only in semantic scope(permissible and impermissible references) but differences in grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation).

    All brains vary across the spectrum from extreme female (psychotic and solipsistic), and the extreme male (analytic, and autistic), because humans grow organically with wide variations in development caused by minor differences in endocrine influence.

    It is painfully obvious in writing, speech, and body language, that Chris’s speech (very much like mine) makes use of autistic semantics and grammar. Whereas, say, someone like Chomsky (who is a great public example of a very high IQ regular male brain) can make use of long arcs of relations without engaging in that speech – the difference being the use of short term memory to explain detailed relations between states, whereas this tends to be difficult for those who intuit relations but cannot introspectively articulate them, and use analogies -which is what chris used to describe his theory.

    The… I won’t call it an error … but ‘imprecision’ in Chris’s explanation of his theory is in the category that people on the spectrum make, until they develop an operational language for it – if they ever do. And it is the ability to develop that operation vocabulary that demonstrates the survival of the identification of a pattern, from criticism by in operational (existentially possible) grammar and semantics. Which is a more operational means of say somewhere between mathematics, which is a grammar of using positional names for relational consistency, and a test of categorical consistency, internal consistency, empirical consistency, operational consistency, scope, limits, and coherence we call ‘science’.

    The original paper says something I would consider mundane, and it is a great leap to anthropomorphize the obvious results the ‘computation’ by trial and error that is possible in the ‘grammar’ that the physical universe is able to express (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biological, and sentient layers of complexity with any design or intent, other than whatever underlying field the perceivable universe exists of produces some set of fields that produce all other complexity we currently comprehend.

    So as someone very little different from Chris in almost every possible respect, but is not so much the victim of self-anchoring, it is rather trivial exercise to explain his ideas and his behavior, just as I have in helping many many other people on the spectrum understand themselves.

    Cheers.

    PS: Again, someone asked me to look at Langan’s work, and that is the reason for my analysis. It is entirely possible that Langan sees something that I do not, and it is even possible he can articulate it, or has articulated it, but I haven’t seen it. And what I have seen I understand is … certainly not the false-patterning of the borderline or schizotypal reasoning. But neither is it the painful analytic detail of a prosecutor of one’s ideas, trying to falsify one’s hypothesis and continuously failing to – and therefore having to accept it.

    PS: fwiw, this is what aspies sound like. Extreme detail. Extreme precision. And statements in non subjective semantics using compound references to compensate for the absence of terminology by which to express our extra-normative perceptions of relations.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 16:48:00 UTC

  • Symptoms Of The Spectrum

    (note that I don’t leap to the conclusion that aspie prose is nonsense. it’s not.) —‘…just gossip (about Langan)’— Um. Hmmm…. Symptoms of ‘being on the Autism spectrum’ which physically means ‘possessing and extreme, male, compartmentalized brain structure’, which produces certain speech and reasoning traits (just as an extreme female, integrated brain structure produces certain speech and reasoning traits). These equate to differences not only in semantic scope(permissible and impermissible references) but differences in grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation). All brains vary across the spectrum from extreme female (psychotic and solipsistic), and the extreme male (analytic, and autistic), because humans grow organically with wide variations in development caused by minor differences in endocrine influence. It is painfully obvious in writing, speech, and body language, that Chris’s speech (very much like mine) makes use of autistic semantics and grammar. Whereas, say, someone like Chomsky (who is a great public example of a very high IQ regular male brain) can make use of long arcs of relations without engaging in that speech – the difference being the use of short term memory to explain detailed relations between states, whereas this tends to be difficult for those who intuit relations but cannot introspectively articulate them, and use analogies -which is what chris used to describe his theory. The… I won’t call it an error … but ‘imprecision’ in Chris’s explanation of his theory is in the category that people on the spectrum make, until they develop an operational language for it – if they ever do. And it is the ability to develop that operation vocabulary that demonstrates the survival of the identification of a pattern, from criticism by in operational (existentially possible) grammar and semantics. Which is a more operational means of say somewhere between mathematics, which is a grammar of using positional names for relational consistency, and a test of categorical consistency, internal consistency, empirical consistency, operational consistency, scope, limits, and coherence we call ‘science’. The original paper says something I would consider mundane, and it is a great leap to anthropomorphize the obvious results the ‘computation’ by trial and error that is possible in the ‘grammar’ that the physical universe is able to express (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biological, and sentient layers of complexity with any design or intent, other than whatever underlying field the perceivable universe exists of produces some set of fields that produce all other complexity we currently comprehend. So as someone very little different from Chris in almost every possible respect, but is not so much the victim of self-anchoring, it is rather trivial exercise to explain his ideas and his behavior, just as I have in helping many many other people on the spectrum understand themselves. Cheers. PS: Again, someone asked me to look at Langan’s work, and that is the reason for my analysis. It is entirely possible that Langan sees something that I do not, and it is even possible he can articulate it, or has articulated it, but I haven’t seen it. And what I have seen I understand is … certainly not the false-patterning of the borderline or schizotypal reasoning. But neither is it the painful analytic detail of a prosecutor of one’s ideas, trying to falsify one’s hypothesis and continuously failing to – and therefore having to accept it. PS: fwiw, this is what aspies sound like. Extreme detail. Extreme precision. And statements in non subjective semantics using compound references to compensate for the absence of terminology by which to express our extra-normative perceptions of relations. -Curt

  • Symptoms Of The Spectrum

    (note that I don’t leap to the conclusion that aspie prose is nonsense. it’s not.) —‘…just gossip (about Langan)’— Um. Hmmm…. Symptoms of ‘being on the Autism spectrum’ which physically means ‘possessing and extreme, male, compartmentalized brain structure’, which produces certain speech and reasoning traits (just as an extreme female, integrated brain structure produces certain speech and reasoning traits). These equate to differences not only in semantic scope(permissible and impermissible references) but differences in grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation). All brains vary across the spectrum from extreme female (psychotic and solipsistic), and the extreme male (analytic, and autistic), because humans grow organically with wide variations in development caused by minor differences in endocrine influence. It is painfully obvious in writing, speech, and body language, that Chris’s speech (very much like mine) makes use of autistic semantics and grammar. Whereas, say, someone like Chomsky (who is a great public example of a very high IQ regular male brain) can make use of long arcs of relations without engaging in that speech – the difference being the use of short term memory to explain detailed relations between states, whereas this tends to be difficult for those who intuit relations but cannot introspectively articulate them, and use analogies -which is what chris used to describe his theory. The… I won’t call it an error … but ‘imprecision’ in Chris’s explanation of his theory is in the category that people on the spectrum make, until they develop an operational language for it – if they ever do. And it is the ability to develop that operation vocabulary that demonstrates the survival of the identification of a pattern, from criticism by in operational (existentially possible) grammar and semantics. Which is a more operational means of say somewhere between mathematics, which is a grammar of using positional names for relational consistency, and a test of categorical consistency, internal consistency, empirical consistency, operational consistency, scope, limits, and coherence we call ‘science’. The original paper says something I would consider mundane, and it is a great leap to anthropomorphize the obvious results the ‘computation’ by trial and error that is possible in the ‘grammar’ that the physical universe is able to express (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biological, and sentient layers of complexity with any design or intent, other than whatever underlying field the perceivable universe exists of produces some set of fields that produce all other complexity we currently comprehend. So as someone very little different from Chris in almost every possible respect, but is not so much the victim of self-anchoring, it is rather trivial exercise to explain his ideas and his behavior, just as I have in helping many many other people on the spectrum understand themselves. Cheers. PS: Again, someone asked me to look at Langan’s work, and that is the reason for my analysis. It is entirely possible that Langan sees something that I do not, and it is even possible he can articulate it, or has articulated it, but I haven’t seen it. And what I have seen I understand is … certainly not the false-patterning of the borderline or schizotypal reasoning. But neither is it the painful analytic detail of a prosecutor of one’s ideas, trying to falsify one’s hypothesis and continuously failing to – and therefore having to accept it. PS: fwiw, this is what aspies sound like. Extreme detail. Extreme precision. And statements in non subjective semantics using compound references to compensate for the absence of terminology by which to express our extra-normative perceptions of relations. -Curt