Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Why Do We Teach Religion? Cost, Breadth, and Error (But Myths are Better)

    WHY? DO WE TEACH RELIGION? COST AND ERROR. – Myth must only be envisioned and accepted. – Philosophy must be reasoned and understood to be envisioned and accepted. – Science must be measured, reasoned, and understood, to be envisioned and accepted.

    1) Myths are easier to teach than measurement, calculation and reason. 2) Myths are false in that they are mere analogies, but having stood thd test of time they produce ‘true’ or ‘correspondent’ actions. 3) it is easy commit error with measurement, calculation, and reason – and hard in myth. Why? That which we convey by myth requires only analogy to experience. That which we must measure calculate and reason is de facto outside of our direct experience. In other words, there is more falsehood but less error in religion. Along the same lines: Why do we possess these forms of ethics: instinctual, imitated, mythical, virtue, rule, and outcome? Answer: Pedagogy. Why do we possess fairy tails, myths and legends, history, literature, and philosophy? Answer: Pedagogy. Why do we teach arithmetic, mathematics, geometry, calculus, non-euclidean geometry, and statistics? Answer: Pedagogy. Why do we argue with one another using emotive approval and disapproval, morality, reason, rationalism, historical analogy, empirical evidence(direct), economic evidence(indirect), and ratio-operational-empirical argument? Answer? ABILITY

  • Was Alexander Great? Much More So Than Historians Give Him Credit For

    ALEXANDER In the 3500 year old battle between the aristocracy(how we live) and the dictatorship(how most of the world lives) he was the first great general to defeat the first great threat to our civilization (our aristocratic civilization): the Persian Empire, and as a consequence the totalitarianism of the river civilizations, making the world safe for the territorial farming civilizations.

    What you might add to your understanding of history, is that those people who invented Aristocracy invented as a consequence, sovereignty. And the only possible means of decision making under sovereignty: debate, reason, logic, empiricism, and the objective Truth that results from their use; and the only possible institutions of decision making under sovereignty: jury, senate, democracy; And the only possible method of conflict resolution under sovereignty: Natural, judge-discovered, common law. And the methods of organization under sovereignty: a market for production of goods and services; a market for reproduction (marriage); a market for the production of commons (multi-house democratic government); a market for the production of knowledge (science); a market for leadership (election). Despite the west being poorer, less populous, and on the edge of the bronze age, the west advanced faster than the rest of the world in both the ancient athenian(navy)-spartan(army)-roman(industry), and modern anglo(navy)-german(army)-american(industry) eras, because there is no faster way of adapting and innovating than heroism, sovereignty, truth, and markets-in-everything. So Heroism creates the need for Sovereignty, which in turn creates the need for everything the west has achieved that we value. And that is why Alexander Matters. He is the HAND of Aristotle. And the two of them conquered the east in defense of the west. Aristotle conquered mysticism and falsehoods, and Alexander despotism. The west has a very important and unique idea: sovereignty. ASIDE: THE WORD “SOVEREIGNTY” AS USED BY THE CLASSES – Sovereignty : Aristocracy – Organizing the Polity. – Liberty: Burghers – Organizing the Economy. – Freedom: Laborers – Transforming resources – Consumption(‘so called positive freedom’): women, children, and the underclasses Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Was Alexander Great? Much More So Than Historians Give Him Credit For

    ALEXANDER In the 3500 year old battle between the aristocracy(how we live) and the dictatorship(how most of the world lives) he was the first great general to defeat the first great threat to our civilization (our aristocratic civilization): the Persian Empire, and as a consequence the totalitarianism of the river civilizations, making the world safe for the territorial farming civilizations.

    What you might add to your understanding of history, is that those people who invented Aristocracy invented as a consequence, sovereignty. And the only possible means of decision making under sovereignty: debate, reason, logic, empiricism, and the objective Truth that results from their use; and the only possible institutions of decision making under sovereignty: jury, senate, democracy; And the only possible method of conflict resolution under sovereignty: Natural, judge-discovered, common law. And the methods of organization under sovereignty: a market for production of goods and services; a market for reproduction (marriage); a market for the production of commons (multi-house democratic government); a market for the production of knowledge (science); a market for leadership (election). Despite the west being poorer, less populous, and on the edge of the bronze age, the west advanced faster than the rest of the world in both the ancient athenian(navy)-spartan(army)-roman(industry), and modern anglo(navy)-german(army)-american(industry) eras, because there is no faster way of adapting and innovating than heroism, sovereignty, truth, and markets-in-everything. So Heroism creates the need for Sovereignty, which in turn creates the need for everything the west has achieved that we value. And that is why Alexander Matters. He is the HAND of Aristotle. And the two of them conquered the east in defense of the west. Aristotle conquered mysticism and falsehoods, and Alexander despotism. The west has a very important and unique idea: sovereignty. ASIDE: THE WORD “SOVEREIGNTY” AS USED BY THE CLASSES – Sovereignty : Aristocracy – Organizing the Polity. – Liberty: Burghers – Organizing the Economy. – Freedom: Laborers – Transforming resources – Consumption(‘so called positive freedom’): women, children, and the underclasses Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Are Emotions Rational? Why Philosophy Is Good for Deception. And Why I am An Anti-Philosophy Philosopher

    ARE EMOTIONS RATIONAL? AND WHY PHILOSOPHY IS SO SUCCESSFUL IN DECEIT. AND WHY I AM AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHER (read this: very very very important synthesis) (A) as far as I know all emotions reflect a reaction to a change in state of some form of inventory ( property ). ( b) as far as I know all moral intuitions reflect cooperative changes in state to personal or common property ( property in toto ). (C) as far as I know all human cognition is limited to that which can be acquired. (D) as far as I know, that which can be acquired is limited to our ability to act in existential reality. (E) as far as I know we can use reason to inspect memory searches. And that memory searches restimulate emotions. (F) and that the value of our memories is ( amplitude ) is determined by these weights. Emotions are measurements. We may or may not measure optimally. Emotions are not produced by reason even if they can be evoked by reason. So I tend to position emotions as empirical measurements by our sensory system. Trained by experience. Open to retraining by experience. Reason can be used to produce experiences that train or retrain us. Imagining and modeling can be used to produce experiences that train or retrain us. But while emotions can be said to be a logical need for an acting life form. And we can rationally and empirically test that hypothesis with consistent success. Yet we cannot say emotions are produced rationally. We can only say in retrospect that we rationally comprehend the function of those emotions as logically necessary for acting creatures. ALSO this question provides yet another example of the pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be” – creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”. So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures. The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself. We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are are suggestive shortcuts. But when this shortcut us combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution. In other words it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse. Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man. It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy. Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end. Curt Doolittle.

  • Are Emotions Rational? Why Philosophy Is Good for Deception. And Why I am An Anti-Philosophy Philosopher

    ARE EMOTIONS RATIONAL? AND WHY PHILOSOPHY IS SO SUCCESSFUL IN DECEIT. AND WHY I AM AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHER (read this: very very very important synthesis) (A) as far as I know all emotions reflect a reaction to a change in state of some form of inventory ( property ). ( b) as far as I know all moral intuitions reflect cooperative changes in state to personal or common property ( property in toto ). (C) as far as I know all human cognition is limited to that which can be acquired. (D) as far as I know, that which can be acquired is limited to our ability to act in existential reality. (E) as far as I know we can use reason to inspect memory searches. And that memory searches restimulate emotions. (F) and that the value of our memories is ( amplitude ) is determined by these weights. Emotions are measurements. We may or may not measure optimally. Emotions are not produced by reason even if they can be evoked by reason. So I tend to position emotions as empirical measurements by our sensory system. Trained by experience. Open to retraining by experience. Reason can be used to produce experiences that train or retrain us. Imagining and modeling can be used to produce experiences that train or retrain us. But while emotions can be said to be a logical need for an acting life form. And we can rationally and empirically test that hypothesis with consistent success. Yet we cannot say emotions are produced rationally. We can only say in retrospect that we rationally comprehend the function of those emotions as logically necessary for acting creatures. ALSO this question provides yet another example of the pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be” – creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”. So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures. The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself. We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are are suggestive shortcuts. But when this shortcut us combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution. In other words it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse. Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man. It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy. Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end. Curt Doolittle.

  • Programming Teaches Operational Thought

    Programming is as important an innovation in thought as is empiricism. Because while empiricism is but correspondent and logic is a but question of sets, programming is operational (existential). I think the act of creating databases is about as close to philosophizing as you can come, but it involves the same problem as logic: as practiced by the discipline its logical but non-operational, and often non-correspondent. When you combine user interfaces(human-reality), programming (operations), and databases (sets/logic), where the data structures must correspond to real world entities (empiricism), then you have covered the entire conceptual spectrum. If we combine the correspondent, logical, and operational, we have everything but the moral. If we were to add full accounting of all transactions (full capital accounting that is: under property in toto) we would essentially create the entire spectrum of dimensions necessary for cognition. My view is that while the blockchain method is currently too weak for this purpose, that the general theory of duplicated recursive competing ledgers provides the full accounting of TITLES (changes in ownership), and that local databases can take care of local accounting (local measures of local capital), then we would have sufficient dimensional information to produce meaningful artificial intelligences bound by the same limits as we are. But regardless of what we do with programming itself, my objective is to teach people that the sensation of teaching a computer but having the reaction “well it should know that’s what I meant!” vs what you told it to do are two different things. And that this ‘gap’ is solved by training the mind to think operationally – existentially? Why? Because just as empiricism taught us that the information we wished to be contained in our words was not in fact there, programming or in broader terms ‘operationalism’ teaches us how little we actually know. In other words, it teaches us humility and skepticism in our own thoughts. Or conversely, it teaches us how to test for error and deceit in others. Is this an additional burden? Of course it is. So was scientific knowledge. So was literacy. So was numeracy. So was law and order. These are all costs. But they are not sunk costs. They are investments we make. And the investments in truth telling are always the BEST investments man has EVER made. (Good luck trying to argue otherwise) My strategy is to require law be written programmatically (operationally) even more so than today. Strictly constructed by the same means. This will produce an even more readable body of law, and one that can be accumulated technologically in future systems other than the human mind. Law is very close to programming now. But we do not have all the requirements in law that are necessary for the defense of the informational commons. If we do that, then law will be dimensionally complete (as far as I can tell). And we will be able to hold the liars at bay.

  • Programming Teaches Operational Thought

    Programming is as important an innovation in thought as is empiricism. Because while empiricism is but correspondent and logic is a but question of sets, programming is operational (existential). I think the act of creating databases is about as close to philosophizing as you can come, but it involves the same problem as logic: as practiced by the discipline its logical but non-operational, and often non-correspondent. When you combine user interfaces(human-reality), programming (operations), and databases (sets/logic), where the data structures must correspond to real world entities (empiricism), then you have covered the entire conceptual spectrum. If we combine the correspondent, logical, and operational, we have everything but the moral. If we were to add full accounting of all transactions (full capital accounting that is: under property in toto) we would essentially create the entire spectrum of dimensions necessary for cognition. My view is that while the blockchain method is currently too weak for this purpose, that the general theory of duplicated recursive competing ledgers provides the full accounting of TITLES (changes in ownership), and that local databases can take care of local accounting (local measures of local capital), then we would have sufficient dimensional information to produce meaningful artificial intelligences bound by the same limits as we are. But regardless of what we do with programming itself, my objective is to teach people that the sensation of teaching a computer but having the reaction “well it should know that’s what I meant!” vs what you told it to do are two different things. And that this ‘gap’ is solved by training the mind to think operationally – existentially? Why? Because just as empiricism taught us that the information we wished to be contained in our words was not in fact there, programming or in broader terms ‘operationalism’ teaches us how little we actually know. In other words, it teaches us humility and skepticism in our own thoughts. Or conversely, it teaches us how to test for error and deceit in others. Is this an additional burden? Of course it is. So was scientific knowledge. So was literacy. So was numeracy. So was law and order. These are all costs. But they are not sunk costs. They are investments we make. And the investments in truth telling are always the BEST investments man has EVER made. (Good luck trying to argue otherwise) My strategy is to require law be written programmatically (operationally) even more so than today. Strictly constructed by the same means. This will produce an even more readable body of law, and one that can be accumulated technologically in future systems other than the human mind. Law is very close to programming now. But we do not have all the requirements in law that are necessary for the defense of the informational commons. If we do that, then law will be dimensionally complete (as far as I can tell). And we will be able to hold the liars at bay.

  • What are Verbal Illusions (Deceptions)?

    ENDING THE POLLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EQUIVALENT OF OPTICAL ILLUSIONS (important) (I figured out how to talk about suggestion)

    The pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be”: creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”. So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures. The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself. We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are suggestive shortcuts. But when this shortcut is combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution. In other words, it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same trick that occurs with optical illusions. Both optical illusions and verbal illusions are created by the same means of suggestion: disinformation or partial information constructed to force intuitionistic substitution. This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse. Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man. It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy. Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • What are Verbal Illusions (Deceptions)?

    ENDING THE POLLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EQUIVALENT OF OPTICAL ILLUSIONS (important) (I figured out how to talk about suggestion)

    The pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be”: creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”. So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures. The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself. We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are suggestive shortcuts. But when this shortcut is combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution. In other words, it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same trick that occurs with optical illusions. Both optical illusions and verbal illusions are created by the same means of suggestion: disinformation or partial information constructed to force intuitionistic substitution. This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse. Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man. It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy. Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • What are Verbal Illusions (Deceptions)?

    ENDING THE POLLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EQUIVALENT OF OPTICAL ILLUSIONS (important) (I figured out how to talk about suggestion)

    The pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be”: creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”. So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures. The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself. We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are suggestive shortcuts. But when this shortcut is combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution. In other words, it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same trick that occurs with optical illusions. Both optical illusions and verbal illusions are created by the same means of suggestion: disinformation or partial information constructed to force intuitionistic substitution. This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse. Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man. It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy. Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.