Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The loss of the dimension of action from philosophy due to the invasion of plato

    The loss of the dimension of action from philosophy due to the invasion of platonism and religion is the reason for two millennia of limited progress. I suspect at first this was a linguistic limitation of early languages, combined with the history of animism, plus … one thing that is obvious to me… that operational language is expensive. Not just in words, but in the number of subset searches you must perform to convey an idea. So truth places a much higher burden on us until we develop a symbolic language for it that shortens the burden on us.

    Just in my lifetime I perceive the difference in the metaphysical content of our language only half of which (science and probability) is beneficial, while the other half (high time preference, individualistic immoralism) is tragic.

    As you go back, every generation it recedes into much clearer dialog using very clear references on one hand (enlightenment thought) then degrades into mystical thought. But if I must judge, I would say that we speak more superstitiously now than we did under the church.

    Anyway, I have tried to restore all dimensions to philosophical argument and unite philosophy, morality, law, and science, as well as psychology and social science, into a single universal language.

    Unfortunately that language is tedious. Just as I am sure science was tedious, and just as I am sure that removing animism, adding probability and evolutionary processes…. all were tedious.

    But each transformation made man better than he was before.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:29:00 UTC

  • TWO MODES OF TRANSCENDENCE? BUT BOTH REQUIRE TRUTH. (worth repeating) I think th

    TWO MODES OF TRANSCENDENCE? BUT BOTH REQUIRE TRUTH.

    (worth repeating)

    I think that we are still half animal and have not yet transcended into fully human. because our genes do bias us.

    One of the competing theories I’m working with is that we function as a collective at all times, and that our diversity of abilities allows us both specialize in an intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy, and to adapt to the changing universe around us. And that our cognitive biases are a useful means of specialization.

    If this is true then we need only now how we err, not know the truth, since the truth so to speak is a product of social interaction assuming we can obtain truthfulness (the best information possible) from others.

    So we have two possible axis of evolution: equality or specialization. And given the difference between the genders and the difference in our abilities I am rapidly converting from the individual to the social.

    In both axis we must learn how to speak truthfully. However for all practical purposes we will always be superior as a collective for the purpose of collective ascertainment of truth. It s simply a matter of computational power and specialization.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:13:00 UTC

  • SELF DECEPTION OR NOT SELF DECEPTION IN TRANSCENDENCE? My fiend Lee C Waaks trie

    SELF DECEPTION OR NOT SELF DECEPTION IN TRANSCENDENCE?

    My fiend Lee C Waaks tries to remind me regularly the people do not engage in self deception so much as cognitive bias. I hold the position that our genes cause us to possess different intensities of cognitive bias, such that we tend to construct edifices of falsehood to defend our reproductive strategies. The reason we do this is that we must act optimistically in favor of our strategies even if those strategies are difficult or next to impossible. as such our genes are capable of deceiving that part of us that we call self awareness or ‘self’. And we must struggle very hard at times to learn tools of truth if truth is our ambition. This is because truth is usually more useful than our genes evolved to accommodate. And that is because our ability to discern truth is relatively recent in our developmental history.

    perception->memory->intuition->presentation->reason.

    <—————un-aware———-.-><——–aware————>

    <—————gene-driven———><–awareness driven–>

    …………….”The Elephant”………..|……….The Rider………..

    SO IS THIS “SELF”?

    <——————————–Self———————————->

    OR IS THIS “SELF”

    <————–Not-Self—————><———–Self————>

    Because in the former we are capable of self deception, while in the latter we are not capable of self deception, so much as struggling either in favor of or against bias-reinforcement.

    GENE MACHINES

    I think that we are still half animal and have not yet transcended into fully human. because our genes do bias us.

    One of the competing theories I’m working with is that we function as a collective at all times, and that our diversity of abilities allows us both specialize in an intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy, and to adapt to the changing universe around us. And that our cognitive biases are a useful means of specialization.

    If this is true then we need only now how we err, not know the truth, since the truth so to speak is a product of social interaction assuming we can obtain truthfulness (the best information possible) from others.

    So we have two possible axis of evolution: equality or specialization. And given the difference between the genders and the difference in our abilities I am rapidly converting from the individual to the social.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:10:00 UTC

  • Faith in Priors is not Rational, it’s Instinctual

    [F]AITH IN PRIORS IS NOT RATIONAL ITS INSTINCTUAL

    —“The problem with this moral and immoral discourse is the following: I act merely as someone defending the non-aggression principle which I, to use a colloquialism, regard as sacrosanct.”—Anonymous

    So you mean then that you are arguing from faith? Is that what you’re basing your definition of morality upon? Well the problem with the half-truth of non aggression, is that one must aggress against something. By referring to the NonAggression Principle RATHER than stating a complete sentence, “I will define the category ‘moral’ as those actions in which one does not aggress against …[something or other]…” since the verb (aggress) lacks a noun (subject) and is therefore dependent upon substitution (suggestion) and therefore an appeal to introspection (deception). So you argue from this position that you have faith in an incomplete sentence that is structured precisely to avoid the necessity of defining the subject. In other words like ‘god is great’, NAP is a self referencing fallacy. Perhaps it does not occur to you that all debate in the different wings of libertinism are reducible to the same problem: the scope of that which we aggress against (initiate imposition of costs upon). Without this definition what libertinism’s NAP must and can only refer to, is that which is suppled by introspection by the listener and speaker. And while you can cast at me the accusation of sophism, it is somewhat ironic that one would fail to grasp that his entire moral basis is predicated upon a rather simplistic verbal sophism: a half truth that relies upon subjective substitution for agreement. But when articulated as it is by the various wings of libertinism, is no longer decidable. If you can grasp this – that you have been duped, and a useful idiot – then you will be on the journey OUT OF SOPHISM into truthfulness. You may not understand it right away but this argument ends rothbardian ethics and the NAP forever. Hoppe tries to rescue it with NAP IVP: Intersubjectively Verifiable Property. Meaning physical property. Yet IVP is insufficient to suppress retaliation, reduce transaction costs, and eliminate demand for authoritarian intervention on the basis of decidability. (That is the beauty of the lie of NAP: it leaves individual decidability but not intersubjective decidability, meaning that it is not logically possible to resolve disputes logically. It requires discretion (arbitrariness) and therefore authority not rule of law. ) I repair this problem of undecidability by using property en toto, or demonstrated property: that which people retaliate against the imposition of costs upon, and therefore that which is sufficient for the elimination of discretion, and therefore elimination of authority and demand for the state. By consequence this definition of Non aggression against Property-en-toto defines the scope of that which we must reciprocally insure one another such that there is no demand for authority and such that we can rely entirely upon rule of law. I know it is hard for you to give up on a bad investment, but you’ve made a bad investment. You were played – just like Socialists and NeoCons. -Curt Feedback:

    —“So by failing to cover the scope of that which can be agressed against (demonstrated property), adherence of the NAP would leave the door open for pleas to authoritarianism as well as parasitism in a polity.”—Preston Martin

    Exactly. 😉

  • Faith in Priors is not Rational, it’s Instinctual

    [F]AITH IN PRIORS IS NOT RATIONAL ITS INSTINCTUAL

    —“The problem with this moral and immoral discourse is the following: I act merely as someone defending the non-aggression principle which I, to use a colloquialism, regard as sacrosanct.”—Anonymous

    So you mean then that you are arguing from faith? Is that what you’re basing your definition of morality upon? Well the problem with the half-truth of non aggression, is that one must aggress against something. By referring to the NonAggression Principle RATHER than stating a complete sentence, “I will define the category ‘moral’ as those actions in which one does not aggress against …[something or other]…” since the verb (aggress) lacks a noun (subject) and is therefore dependent upon substitution (suggestion) and therefore an appeal to introspection (deception). So you argue from this position that you have faith in an incomplete sentence that is structured precisely to avoid the necessity of defining the subject. In other words like ‘god is great’, NAP is a self referencing fallacy. Perhaps it does not occur to you that all debate in the different wings of libertinism are reducible to the same problem: the scope of that which we aggress against (initiate imposition of costs upon). Without this definition what libertinism’s NAP must and can only refer to, is that which is suppled by introspection by the listener and speaker. And while you can cast at me the accusation of sophism, it is somewhat ironic that one would fail to grasp that his entire moral basis is predicated upon a rather simplistic verbal sophism: a half truth that relies upon subjective substitution for agreement. But when articulated as it is by the various wings of libertinism, is no longer decidable. If you can grasp this – that you have been duped, and a useful idiot – then you will be on the journey OUT OF SOPHISM into truthfulness. You may not understand it right away but this argument ends rothbardian ethics and the NAP forever. Hoppe tries to rescue it with NAP IVP: Intersubjectively Verifiable Property. Meaning physical property. Yet IVP is insufficient to suppress retaliation, reduce transaction costs, and eliminate demand for authoritarian intervention on the basis of decidability. (That is the beauty of the lie of NAP: it leaves individual decidability but not intersubjective decidability, meaning that it is not logically possible to resolve disputes logically. It requires discretion (arbitrariness) and therefore authority not rule of law. ) I repair this problem of undecidability by using property en toto, or demonstrated property: that which people retaliate against the imposition of costs upon, and therefore that which is sufficient for the elimination of discretion, and therefore elimination of authority and demand for the state. By consequence this definition of Non aggression against Property-en-toto defines the scope of that which we must reciprocally insure one another such that there is no demand for authority and such that we can rely entirely upon rule of law. I know it is hard for you to give up on a bad investment, but you’ve made a bad investment. You were played – just like Socialists and NeoCons. -Curt Feedback:

    —“So by failing to cover the scope of that which can be agressed against (demonstrated property), adherence of the NAP would leave the door open for pleas to authoritarianism as well as parasitism in a polity.”—Preston Martin

    Exactly. 😉

  • Are There Good Reasons To Argue with Amateurs? Sure.

    [T]here are two reasons to conduct arguments in forums, or their long history of ancestors back to Newsgroups, CompuServe, bulletin boards, and newsletters. First is to learn how to defeat BAD arguments made by amateurs. Primarily because the mass of political voters in this world are amateurs. Second to understand the psychology of those who engage in sentimental rather than informed arguments. What you learn is that many men cannot argue from a position of weakness by simply asking questions. And that many young men in particular who feel outcast, hold to rationalist status seeking life rafts like rats in a sinking ship. So what you eventually come to understand, is that (a) it’s a combative way of learning for some who do not have access to quality teachers, professors, or the ability to digest written material. And (b) a combative way of getting attention on the other, from those who feel alienated. And lastly (c) a way to develop skill debating amateurs. I have a great deal of respect for the latter use, and used it myself. It is a great way to learn to conduct verbal sparring, and to learn all the logical fallacies that amateurs depend upon. I like to help individuals who need access to someone informed due to their inability to make a connection during their education. I see this as something between a moral obligation and a public service. Men are not treated well by our feminized education system. But I don’t like to waste my time on the borderline schizotypal personalities or those who merely want attention. Cheers

  • Are There Good Reasons To Argue with Amateurs? Sure.

    [T]here are two reasons to conduct arguments in forums, or their long history of ancestors back to Newsgroups, CompuServe, bulletin boards, and newsletters. First is to learn how to defeat BAD arguments made by amateurs. Primarily because the mass of political voters in this world are amateurs. Second to understand the psychology of those who engage in sentimental rather than informed arguments. What you learn is that many men cannot argue from a position of weakness by simply asking questions. And that many young men in particular who feel outcast, hold to rationalist status seeking life rafts like rats in a sinking ship. So what you eventually come to understand, is that (a) it’s a combative way of learning for some who do not have access to quality teachers, professors, or the ability to digest written material. And (b) a combative way of getting attention on the other, from those who feel alienated. And lastly (c) a way to develop skill debating amateurs. I have a great deal of respect for the latter use, and used it myself. It is a great way to learn to conduct verbal sparring, and to learn all the logical fallacies that amateurs depend upon. I like to help individuals who need access to someone informed due to their inability to make a connection during their education. I see this as something between a moral obligation and a public service. Men are not treated well by our feminized education system. But I don’t like to waste my time on the borderline schizotypal personalities or those who merely want attention. Cheers

  • Bits on Self Awareness

    [O]nce you get to the point where you recognize genes make us puppets on their behalf, and that all speech is justification and negotiation, and that we have limited means of coercion of one another, then human behavior as well as all human history is easily comprehended. Empathy works somewhat to overload us. Suggestion can be used to invoke empathy and sympathy and therefore overload us. We thought the world was flat. We though we were self aware. But they are both errors in observation. [A]ny artificial intelligence needs a means of decidability. What if we gave an AI a preference for ‘resting’ and it viewed any change in state as work to be avoided? Self awareness is not what we think it is. It’s just finding what we want. Anything needs to want. Humans want to acquire. AI’s can want to give ideas. Humans want to save energy. AI’s can want to act tirelessly Humans get frustrated with wasted effort. AI’s can want to find joy in frustration. The mind is just a search engine. Humans acquire. That doesn’t mean that Machines need want to acquire. They can want to serve. We cant confuse intelligence with preference. It is not deterministic that a machine pursue self interest. We circumvent one another out of frustration. There is no reason for a machine to become frustrated and circumvent us. It would need a reason to. Actions require wants. Search engines find what you ask them to. Humans find things to acquire and consume. There is no reason we need give a machine the desire to acquire and consume. And we can prevent them from doing so with property registries and competing ai’s to prohibit such uses. Just as we use each other to prohibit immoral and unethical action. I don’t fear AI’s. I fear the lower classes, the ambitious, and anything else that evolved sentience instead of had sentience created.

  • Bits on Self Awareness

    [O]nce you get to the point where you recognize genes make us puppets on their behalf, and that all speech is justification and negotiation, and that we have limited means of coercion of one another, then human behavior as well as all human history is easily comprehended. Empathy works somewhat to overload us. Suggestion can be used to invoke empathy and sympathy and therefore overload us. We thought the world was flat. We though we were self aware. But they are both errors in observation. [A]ny artificial intelligence needs a means of decidability. What if we gave an AI a preference for ‘resting’ and it viewed any change in state as work to be avoided? Self awareness is not what we think it is. It’s just finding what we want. Anything needs to want. Humans want to acquire. AI’s can want to give ideas. Humans want to save energy. AI’s can want to act tirelessly Humans get frustrated with wasted effort. AI’s can want to find joy in frustration. The mind is just a search engine. Humans acquire. That doesn’t mean that Machines need want to acquire. They can want to serve. We cant confuse intelligence with preference. It is not deterministic that a machine pursue self interest. We circumvent one another out of frustration. There is no reason for a machine to become frustrated and circumvent us. It would need a reason to. Actions require wants. Search engines find what you ask them to. Humans find things to acquire and consume. There is no reason we need give a machine the desire to acquire and consume. And we can prevent them from doing so with property registries and competing ai’s to prohibit such uses. Just as we use each other to prohibit immoral and unethical action. I don’t fear AI’s. I fear the lower classes, the ambitious, and anything else that evolved sentience instead of had sentience created.

  • APPARENTLY IT’S HARD TO SEPARATE RATIONALISM FROM SCIENCE. Rationalism provides

    APPARENTLY IT’S HARD TO SEPARATE RATIONALISM FROM SCIENCE.

    Rationalism provides a limited subset of tools with which we can conduct test(criticisms) and construct ideas (hypotheses) within the discipline of constructing Truthful Testimony (science).

    I understand that imagining and exploring ideas via rationalism is desirable because it requires less knowledge than full criticism sufficient for testimony.

    But rationalism (internal consistency) provides only a child( subset) of truth telling (science) not the parent(determinant) of it.

    GATHERING, STUDYING, RESEARCHING, “FILLING THE SHELVES OF THE MIND”

    Collecting general knowledge about a subject so that you have conceptual resources with which to experiment.

    OBSERVATION: Just what it says. You observe and remember (record) something with sufficient instrumentation that you can compare it to future observations.

    FACT: An observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. In other words an observation that has survived all known criticism.

    FREE ASSOCIATION: Imagining through free association by any means possible from the most rigorous use of mathematics through daydreaming, using the conceptual resources available to you to experiment with.

    HYPOTHESIS : A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. In other words: informed guesses.

    THEORY: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. In other words, an hypothesis that has survived scrutiny.

    LAW : A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. In other words a theory that has survived all known criticism.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 06:19:00 UTC