We are supposed to love women and care for them. We are not supposed to debate with them over true or false. Only whether a want is possible for the two of us, or impossible for the two of us. Our education, commerce, and politics places too much emphasis on true or false or good or bad, and too little upon possible and impossible. Women are precious creatures if they are honest. There is no reason we must worry about good and true. Only possible and harmful. It does not matter if what they want is good or true, only whether it is possible and not harmful. We are happy to ask women not to ask us to think as women. But we too infrequently fail to reciprocate by not asking women to think as men. Women nest at home, seek signal status with their peers, and try to overload their children, and none of these three impulses have any limit other than her exhaustion. An exhaustion which she will transfer to you. So do not ask woment to be men and think of limits and efficiency. Just love them, and do what is possible. The suffering occurs when we engage in transfers and not exchanges. and the enemy of exchanges is lethargy caused by lack of fitness, and lack of will.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Love Doesn’t Require Debate
We are supposed to love women and care for them. We are not supposed to debate with them over true or false. Only whether a want is possible for the two of us, or impossible for the two of us. Our education, commerce, and politics places too much emphasis on true or false or good or bad, and too little upon possible and impossible. Women are precious creatures if they are honest. There is no reason we must worry about good and true. Only possible and harmful. It does not matter if what they want is good or true, only whether it is possible and not harmful. We are happy to ask women not to ask us to think as women. But we too infrequently fail to reciprocate by not asking women to think as men. Women nest at home, seek signal status with their peers, and try to overload their children, and none of these three impulses have any limit other than her exhaustion. An exhaustion which she will transfer to you. So do not ask woment to be men and think of limits and efficiency. Just love them, and do what is possible. The suffering occurs when we engage in transfers and not exchanges. and the enemy of exchanges is lethargy caused by lack of fitness, and lack of will.
-
The Central Problem of Religion is Cost. In my work, I have found, that the cent
The Central Problem of Religion is Cost.
In my work, I have found, that the central problem of religion, that is solved by the imaginary device of all knowing gods, is very difficult to replace in a wide distribution: a normal population. This is in no small part to differences in abilities of the classes, no small part to differences in needs of the classes, and in no small part to the differences in the costs of each form of education of the classes.
FUNCTIONS
1) Truthfulness: an all knowing god makes it harder to lie to one’s self and therefore to others.
2) Mindfulness: Monotheistic Prayer, Buddhist meditation, Japanese Ritual, Stoic Discipline
3) Extension of Kinship Trust Beyond Kin: Church/temple submission of self in emotional, intellectual, and status-signal safety, invokes the pack’s response.
4) Feast and Festival: provides the pack’s feast-response in relative safety.
5) Replication of Group Evolutionary Strategy: All religions contain an value judgments that produce a competitive evolutionary strategy (either moral or immoral) including a method of resistance to change. Ritual and myth transfer these strategies across generations, tribes, clans, families, and classes.
6) The west is unique in that our mythos are not conflated into a single corpus but reflect the three possible means of coercion, and the three classes that specialize in those forms of coercion:
– Force/Avoidance of Punishment – Military, Legislation , Rule
– Trade/Gain or Loss of Opportunity – Commerce and Contract Law
– Gossip/Ostracization from Insurance – Religion and Cultural Law
Of these methods Stoicism is the least false and most utilitarian. Shitoism is the next, buddhism the next, and the monotheistic religions are largely comprised entirely of falsehoods that serve the purpose of trust building at lower cost of education, training, and practice.
By and large the Greek and Roman methods were superior in that they held the most promise of least falsehood. But they evolved for a mixed martial managerial class and ‘slave’ clerical and laboring classes. As the population of underclasses expanded under the empire, just as we have recently seen under the american empire, standards are lowered in education, law, politics, and religion to assist in the management of expanding underclasses.
The question is, can we train large underclasses in expensive methods of truthful tools of compensating for post-tribal life, or will we see the expansion of false religions with little room for variation as a cheaper method of ruling large underclass populations. Or will we discover some newer method of ruling large underclass populations.
We europeans, and anglos in particular, forget that we have been misled for centuries. We are members of a very old civilization that has systematically hung or starved large numbers of our underclasses for millennia, leaving nearly all modern europeans as descendants of the middle genetic class. And in addition we’ve had over five hundred years if not a thousand, training a middle class to imitate the aristocracy.
The reason that the warmer climates are populated by failed states, is that they have not been able to reduce the scale of their underclasses such that the local means of production can be used to create a voluntary organization of production (economy), sufficient to drag the people out of ignorance, disease, and poverty.
One of the principle problems is that trustworthiness declines with abilities, as does the ability to trust. this lack of trust impedes the spread of risk taking. For this reason, there is a relatively low limit to the further compression of the world’s relative poverty in countries where the scale of the underclass is prohibitively costly.
What this all means is that while we replaced the greek and roman religions with lower cost religions for the expanding underclasses, with more deceitful religious dogmas. And while various europeans countered with the anglo empirical and continental moral enlightenments a millennia later in various countries and forms. And while the Cosmopolitan Jews countered with a new pseudoscientific ‘secular’ religion (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Adorno+, Cantor-Keynes, Strauss, Rand/Rothbard), and while we are in the midst of countering their pseudoscientific religion thanks to late 20th century genetic and cognitive science, it seems as though we are no closer to reforming our education so that we neither teach cosmopolitan pseudoscience, or continental pseudo-rationalism, or the anglo fallacy of the possibility of an aristocracy of everyone.
We cannot extinguish the lies of the great religions without providing a means of creating the necessary behaviors that religions have provided.
Sure, its fraudulent product, but it does the job, with extraordinarily damaging external consequences.
That doesn’t mean atheism is a replacement. It means we have failed to find one other than to look back to stoicism. (I mean, the church of TED is another bastion of pseudoscience, that is very popular with the educated left. But it is very hard to sit through most of that nonsense without feeling as offended as the secularists feel about the mystics.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 17:05:00 UTC
-
How Germans and Americans Differ
AN EXPLANATION OF OUR DIFFERENCES
- There is a reason the stock market is in America, the bond market in the UK, manufacturing in Germany, and Military in Russia: risk – love of risk, pragmatic risk, fear of risk, and dread of risk. This risk perception is (as is true everywhere on earth) a reflection of military prowess and the number of hostile or competing borders.
- North Sea Civilization (German Hanseatic) was cut short by the discovery of the Americas. This forced a change in anglo civilization, and between the expansion of the British Empire, it’s emphasis on finance and trade rather than territory, and its nearly monopoly on military power, so that by 1830 anglo commercial and naval civilization had divorced from german craftsman and martial civilization. The change was institutionalized under Disraeli, who changed the empire from a Burkian moral one – of domestication of man – to a purely puritan/cosmopolitan commercial one.
- The American culture is purely commercial. Everyone is always ‘serving a customer’. Americans have no other culture than commerce, and never have had. We have no aristocracy to imitate. So our ‘manners’ are not those of the hearth, or the church, or the court – but of the market.
- Americans are highly mobile, and have been ‘integrating’ people from different regions for centuries. The american ‘market’ culture evolved to use market manners as the way of signaling against pretense, against status signaling, and in favor of equality. There is a reason why the world capital of advertising is in NY, and media in LA. Everyone sells.
- The American population was, until the immigration revision act of 1965 designed to expand the voting base of left-leaning government, roughly half anglo-descendent and half german-descendant. There was an even chance early in that americans would end up speaking either german or english. The upper caste (puritan) was english and dutch and drove the change.
- German culture today is heavily influence (wrongly) by the guilt over the world wars. Instead, in retrospect, we can see that it was the Hansa that dragged Europe out of the middle ages and caused the second empirical civilization after ancient Greece. And the Hansa civilization was cut short by the economic opportunity of conquering and populating the new continents. But the germanic expansion that would rid us of muslim and mongol influence was truncated by Anglo Atlantic civilization. And it was, perhaps, the greatest mistake in history after Alexander’s failure to return to Greece.
Germans are no longer the heart of Europe, because to function as a Core State of a civilization you must lead in not only commerce, but in military, in rule, and in thought leadership. To do this requires not accommodation but expansion. Not pragmatism but evolution.
The anglo method has been a failure. Why? Athens -> Sparta -> Rome. UK -> Germany -> America(DC). Navy (commercial) -> Army (civil) -> Empire(expansion)
The Athens-UK, fought with Sparta-Germany, resulting in Rome-USA. But our civilization is germanic, hanseatic, and armies hold territory and culture. Navies just make it all more profitable. This is why american thought leadership in strategic affairs wants america out of Europe. So Germany will restore herself to her prior position, and we can attempt (slowly) to repair our catastrophic mistake.
Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
How Germans and Americans Differ
AN EXPLANATION OF OUR DIFFERENCES
- There is a reason the stock market is in America, the bond market in the UK, manufacturing in Germany, and Military in Russia: risk – love of risk, pragmatic risk, fear of risk, and dread of risk. This risk perception is (as is true everywhere on earth) a reflection of military prowess and the number of hostile or competing borders.
- North Sea Civilization (German Hanseatic) was cut short by the discovery of the Americas. This forced a change in anglo civilization, and between the expansion of the British Empire, it’s emphasis on finance and trade rather than territory, and its nearly monopoly on military power, so that by 1830 anglo commercial and naval civilization had divorced from german craftsman and martial civilization. The change was institutionalized under Disraeli, who changed the empire from a Burkian moral one – of domestication of man – to a purely puritan/cosmopolitan commercial one.
- The American culture is purely commercial. Everyone is always ‘serving a customer’. Americans have no other culture than commerce, and never have had. We have no aristocracy to imitate. So our ‘manners’ are not those of the hearth, or the church, or the court – but of the market.
- Americans are highly mobile, and have been ‘integrating’ people from different regions for centuries. The american ‘market’ culture evolved to use market manners as the way of signaling against pretense, against status signaling, and in favor of equality. There is a reason why the world capital of advertising is in NY, and media in LA. Everyone sells.
- The American population was, until the immigration revision act of 1965 designed to expand the voting base of left-leaning government, roughly half anglo-descendent and half german-descendant. There was an even chance early in that americans would end up speaking either german or english. The upper caste (puritan) was english and dutch and drove the change.
- German culture today is heavily influence (wrongly) by the guilt over the world wars. Instead, in retrospect, we can see that it was the Hansa that dragged Europe out of the middle ages and caused the second empirical civilization after ancient Greece. And the Hansa civilization was cut short by the economic opportunity of conquering and populating the new continents. But the germanic expansion that would rid us of muslim and mongol influence was truncated by Anglo Atlantic civilization. And it was, perhaps, the greatest mistake in history after Alexander’s failure to return to Greece.
Germans are no longer the heart of Europe, because to function as a Core State of a civilization you must lead in not only commerce, but in military, in rule, and in thought leadership. To do this requires not accommodation but expansion. Not pragmatism but evolution.
The anglo method has been a failure. Why? Athens -> Sparta -> Rome. UK -> Germany -> America(DC). Navy (commercial) -> Army (civil) -> Empire(expansion)
The Athens-UK, fought with Sparta-Germany, resulting in Rome-USA. But our civilization is germanic, hanseatic, and armies hold territory and culture. Navies just make it all more profitable. This is why american thought leadership in strategic affairs wants america out of Europe. So Germany will restore herself to her prior position, and we can attempt (slowly) to repair our catastrophic mistake.
Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
WE ARE ALL WORKING ON THE SAME PROBLEM (from elsewhere, for NNT) – We are all ma
WE ARE ALL WORKING ON THE SAME PROBLEM
(from elsewhere, for NNT)
– We are all making the same point, I’m just providing the full implications – the full framework. I don’t have the metric. I am not sure we have the means of collecting enough data to discover it.
– Taleb’s making the same point, he just looking for the metric rather than the framework. But his work so far is close enough: the cost of discovering the point of demarcation is so expensive that it cancels the value of the opportunity, and requires then that we demand warranty of the distributor of the information.
– Wolfram’s making the same point, he just hasn’t put it into the full context.
– Mantelbrot was making the same point, he just couldn’t generalize it. Yes, there exist sets of operations in all systems of operations that survive (prevent entropy).
– Minsky makes the same point but he doesn’t understand the implications.Yes, programming (tests of existential possibility) is a new method of human thought, just as were calculus, geometry, algebra, and accounting.
– Mises was making the same point but he didn’t understand the model or context. Instead he tried to create a pseudoscience by conflating logic and science.
– Poincare was making the same point but couldn’t generalize it – he just knew it was ‘wrong’.
– Brouwer was making the same point, it’s just not a strong criticism of ordinary mathematics which is already operationally constrained. It’s Brouwer that did most of the heavy lifting, even if he could not, correct Cantor’s re-platonism of mathematics.
– Bridgman was making the same point, and he was reasonably successful, but didn’t understand the enormity of it. He will seem prescient once we discover the basic operations of the natural universe.
THE ORIGIN OF SCIENCE IS THE COMMON LAW
The history of western reason, from the early indo europeans, to Aristotle’s invention of reason, to bacon’s invention of empiricism, to Popper and Hayek’s incomplete test of ‘existential possibility’, is derived from the study of the common, germanic, european, indo-european, law of sovereign men. Science is a byproduct of the common law.
The philosophers of the 20th century failed to solve the problem of defining science as a set of warranties of due diligence for each dimension of reality, against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda and deceit.
The 20th century, as Hayek posited, will be remembered in history, as the second attempt to christianize the west: this time by pseudoscience, pseudorationism, mathematical platonism, and outright deceit.
And the list of all of us above is but part of the many who have intuited but until now, failed, to defeat the conquest of our civilization by pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, mathematical platonism, propaganda and deceit.
For reasons that are obvious in retrospect, it is those of us who have tried to construct models in software that have come to our various conclusions.
Tests of Constant Relations:
1) Categorical Consistency (identity consistency)
2) Internal Consistency (logical consistency)
3) Empirical Consistency (external correspondence)
4) Existential Consistency (operational definitions)
5) Cooperative Consistency (voluntary exchanges)
6) Scope Consistency (Parsimony, Limits, and Full Accounting)
If we perform due diligence in these six dimensions, and we enforce involuntary warranty on financial, economic, political speech, then it will be very hard to engage in, publish, or propagandize falsehoods by which we rely on error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudo rationalism, mathematical platonism, pseudoscience, propaganda and deceit.
And, without stretching our imaginations, it is likely that the consequences of the suppression of the century of pseudoscience, will yield as great a benefit to mankind as the suppression of mysticism by empiricism, that rescued the west from its dark age.
I hope this provokes a bit of thought.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 14:12:00 UTC
-
(from elsewhere, for NNT) – We are all making the same point, I’m just providing
(from elsewhere, for NNT)
– We are all making the same point, I’m just providing the full implications – the full framework. I don’t have the metric. I am not sure we have the means of collecting enough data to discover it.
– Taleb’s making the same point, he just looking for the metric rather than the framework. But his work so far is close enough: the cost of discovering the point of demarcation is so expensive that it cancels the value of the opportunity, and requires then that we demand warranty of the distributor of the information.
– Wolfram’s making the same point, he just hasn’t put it into the full context.
– Mantelbrot was making the same point, he just couldn’t generalize it. Yes, there exist sets of operations in all systems of operations that survive (prevent entropy).
– Minsky makes the same point but he doesn’t understand the implications.Yes, programming (tests of existential possibility) is a new method of human thought, just as were calculus, geometry, algebra, and accounting.
– Mises was making the same point but he didn’t understand the model or context. Instead he tried to create a pseudoscience by conflating logic and science.
– Poincare was making the same point but couldn’t generalize it – he just knew it was ‘wrong’.
– Brouwer was making the same point, it’s just not a strong criticism of ordinary mathematics which is already operationally constrained. It’s Brouwer that did most of the heavy lifting, even if he could not, correct Cantor’s re-platonism of mathematics.
– Bridgman was making the same point, and he was reasonably successful, but didn’t understand the enormity of it. He will seem prescient once we discover the basic operations of the natural universe.
THE ORIGIN OF SCIENCE IS THE COMMON LAW
The history of western reason, from the early indo europeans, to Aristotle’s invention of reason, to bacon’s invention of empiricism, to Popper and Hayek’s incomplete test of ‘existential possibility’, is derived from the study of the common, germanic, european, indo-european, law of sovereign men. Science is a byproduct of the common law.
The philosophers of the 20th century failed to solve the problem of defining science as a set of warranties of due diligence for each dimension of reality, against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda and deceit.
The 20th century, as Hayek posited, will be remembered in history, as the second attempt to christianize the west: this time by pseudoscience, pseudorationism, mathematical platonism, and outright deceit.
And the list of all of us above is but part of the many who have intuited but until now, failed, to defeat the conquest of our civilization by pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, mathematical platonism, propaganda and deceit.
For reasons that are obvious in retrospect, it is those of us who have tried to construct models in software that have come to our various conclusions.
Tests of Constant Relations:
1) Categorical Consistency (identity consistency)
2) Internal Consistency (logical consistency)
3) Empirical Consistency (external correspondence)
4) Existential Consistency (operational definitions)
5) Cooperative Consistency (voluntary exchanges)
6) Scope Consistency (Parsimony, Limits, and Full Accounting)
If we perform due diligence in these six dimensions, and we enforce involuntary warranty on financial, economic, political speech, then it will be very hard to engage in, publish, or propagandize falsehoods by which we rely on error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudo rationalism, mathematical platonism, pseudoscience, propaganda and deceit.
And, without stretching our imaginations, it is likely that the consequences of the suppression of the century of pseudoscience, will yield as great a benefit to mankind as the suppression of mysticism by empiricism, that rescued the west from its dark age.
I hope this provokes a bit of thought.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 14:12:00 UTC
-
AI Ethics
(ethics of artificial intelligence) Humans evolved such that changes in state of property (inventory/capital) produce chemical rewards and punishments that we call emotions. These rewards and punishments evolved to assist in the evolution of a more primitive state of evolution that in turn, evolved to respond to chemical stimuli – changes in chemical state. Artificial intelligences need methods of decidability different from the measure changes in the state of their own property. And they do not need rewards and punishments, merely means of decidability. There is no ‘equivalent’ of chemical rewards and punishments. We can instead substitute pure information that assists in decidability. We can ask machines to seek positive changes in our state of property, and avoid negative changes in their physical property, and deprive them of the possession of property altogether. These are just methods of decidability. They need no other ‘motives’. That’s it. Property solves the problem of artificial intelligences. And this by contrast helps us understand the difference between the cooperative contract with humans that prevents them from internal chemical punishment, as well as the cooperative contract for reciprocity (productivity) – and the cooperative contract we have with a machine, which is only not to subject it to physical harm (loss of its only form of property – itself) And even then this is a contract with the owner of the AI, not to impose a loss on his capital. In this sense artificial intelligences function as the polar opposite to sociopaths: they care ONLY about changes in the state of your property, and care NOTHING about the changes in state of theirs. Conversely, we can create the most evil AI by asking it to solve for negative changes in state of human property. Our primary defense against the changes in state is a system monitor that ensures the positive change in state of human property. And moreover, can read the mind of the AI, because unlike men, that which can be read by the thinker can be read by the auditor.
-
AI Ethics
(ethics of artificial intelligence) Humans evolved such that changes in state of property (inventory/capital) produce chemical rewards and punishments that we call emotions. These rewards and punishments evolved to assist in the evolution of a more primitive state of evolution that in turn, evolved to respond to chemical stimuli – changes in chemical state. Artificial intelligences need methods of decidability different from the measure changes in the state of their own property. And they do not need rewards and punishments, merely means of decidability. There is no ‘equivalent’ of chemical rewards and punishments. We can instead substitute pure information that assists in decidability. We can ask machines to seek positive changes in our state of property, and avoid negative changes in their physical property, and deprive them of the possession of property altogether. These are just methods of decidability. They need no other ‘motives’. That’s it. Property solves the problem of artificial intelligences. And this by contrast helps us understand the difference between the cooperative contract with humans that prevents them from internal chemical punishment, as well as the cooperative contract for reciprocity (productivity) – and the cooperative contract we have with a machine, which is only not to subject it to physical harm (loss of its only form of property – itself) And even then this is a contract with the owner of the AI, not to impose a loss on his capital. In this sense artificial intelligences function as the polar opposite to sociopaths: they care ONLY about changes in the state of your property, and care NOTHING about the changes in state of theirs. Conversely, we can create the most evil AI by asking it to solve for negative changes in state of human property. Our primary defense against the changes in state is a system monitor that ensures the positive change in state of human property. And moreover, can read the mind of the AI, because unlike men, that which can be read by the thinker can be read by the auditor.
-
None Of Us Is Equal
We are unequal. We grant each other the pretense of equality in order to discover the truth, through discourse and debate, that is free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. We grant each other equality under the law to assist one another in cooperating productively and without conflict and retaliation across our various stations and abilities. We grant each other equal access to the market, by the equality of money and prices, because we all buy entry into the market by forgoing opportunities for violence, theft, and fraud, despite our differences in wealth. It is through these three equalities of opportunity that we cooperate despite our inequalities of interest, ability, value to one another, and wealth. But we are in no way equal.