Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Saturate The Environment with Truthfulness and People Will Act Truthfully

    (By: Curt Doolittle, Johannes Meixner and Andy Curzon) [W]e learn actions by doing. But we learn metaphysics by observation: our most effective learning-by-doing comes from recognizing patterns and habits of others in the environment. Things we take for granted as static, rather than open to our modification.

    So I tend to see something like programming as a skill that must be learned by doing. Some people are incapable no matter how many times they try to do something. Some people must do something many, many times. Others must do things a few times. Others just once or twice. Some of us can master concepts purely by imagining doing them a few times, and some of us by imagining the art of imagining doing them instantly. (We are very RARE.) We know that this progression roughy mirrors standard deviations of IQ around a ‘human minimum’ of around 106 (the start of Smart Fraction abilities: verbal articulation of ideas). And that makes sense when you realize that verbalizing complex ideas is in itself, the art of imagining operations in sequence. WHERE DOES THIS LEAD? – Saturate the environment with truth and people will act truthfully. – Saturate the environment with error the people will act erroneously. – Saturate the environment with deception and the people will act deceptively. – Saturate the environment with violence, and people will act violently. Because that is what it means to adapt to the environment.. – Education was the first means of public broadcasting. – Reading was the next, but it was voluntary. – Radio was next and could be done without effort. – Television was next and it was a serotonin-producing drug, that made saturation effortless. – Today the curious can see confirmation and alliance in almost any alternate reality that they can imagine. In Advanced countries people live in their isolation chambers, listening to echoes. Saturation is the best teaching. But how do we ensure people are saturated by truths rather than falsehoods? We make untruthful speech a crime when placed into the commons. Deprive the environment of negativity, and people will not act negatively. And within one or two generations we will saturate people with truth. And as such we: – Saturate the environment with truth and people will act truthfully. – Saturate the environment with trust and people will act trustworthily. – Saturate the environment with confidence and people will act confidently. – Saturate the environment with certainty and people will act certainly. – Saturate the environment with assurance, and people will act assuredly. – Saturate the environment with anything, and people will act likewise. So you see…. “after all, we’re all alike.” Education need not be interpersonal if it is environmental. The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Propertarian Arguments are Categorically Proofs.  (And a note on painful births 🙂 )

    [A] proof is a test of internal consistency. A proof is not a truth proposition. It is merely a statement of existential possibility: that by (a)the given axioms, or (b)the possible operations, and (c) the tests of subjective incentive at each opportunity for choice, that the given argument is possible. Testimonialism and Propertarianism extend Critical Rationalism fully to all known areas of thought. Testimonialism completes critical rationalism. [M]oreover, the profundity of the first paragraph is something that you probably cannot find in university philosophy departments. As far as I know, Testimonialism is a completely novel invention. And you and I are participating in the growth of something very new. Something that failed in the early 20th century, and by that failure nearly wiped out western civilization. If you learn propertarianism and testimonialism you will learn to construct proofs. And you will win arguments against the liars. The fact that I am constructing proofs, rather than asking you to accept authority or wisdom or moral appeal, is why I have such an absurdly off-kilter behavior when doing philosophy. Because I’m just taking an argument and seeing if I can construct a proof for it – just like a mathematician tries to construct a proof, and just like a computer programmers is trying to figure out if something is computable. I don’t have to act like a member of the Academy (Cathedral) because I am not lying or asking you to believe I hold moral authority. I’m a just constructing proofs. And at least proofs are truthful (warrantied testimony) even if they may not be true (complete). So Propertarianism is how we are going to win. We are going to win because when I am done it will be possible to construct moral proofs. Once we can construct moral proofs, we can create strict construction in law.  And we can convert all commons to property.  And under universal standing, protect that property. And we will eliminate lying the same way we created property and eliminated violence and theft. And the same way we created contracts and law, and eliminated fraud.  And the same way we created science and eliminated mysticism.  We will create testimonialism and eliminate rationalism, justification, equivocation, obscurantism, pseudoscience, lying, and propaganda. Fukuyama was wrong. The end of history is the truthful civilization. And we are going to birth it. And I hope that birth is painful.  🙂

  • PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS ARE CATEGORICALLY PROOFS A proof is a test of internal co

    PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS ARE CATEGORICALLY PROOFS

    A proof is a test of internal consistency. A proof is not a truth proposition. It is merely a statement of existential possibility: that by (a)the given axioms, or (b)the possible operations, and(c) the tests of subjective incentive at each opportunity for choice, that the given argument is possible.

    This extends Critical Rationalism fully to all areas of thought. Testimonialism completes critical rationalism.

    The profundity of the first paragraph is something that you probably cannot find in university philosophy departments. As far as I know, Testimonialism is a completely novel invention. And you and I are watching the growth of something very new. Something that failed in the early 20th century, and by that failure nearly wiped out western civilization.

    If you learn propertarianism and testimonialism you will construct proofs.

    The fact that I am constructing proofs, rather than asking you to accept authority or wisdom or moral appeal, is why I have such an absurdly off kilter behavior when doing philosophy.

    Because I’m just taking an argument and seeing if I can construct a proof for it – just like a mathematician tries to construct a proof, and just like a computer programmers is trying to figure out if something is computable.

    I don’t have to act like a member of the Academy (Cathedral) because I am not lying or asking you to believe nonsense. I’m a just constructing proofs. Proofs are truthful even if they may not be true (complete).

    So this is how we are going to win. We are going to win because when I am done it will be possible to construct moral proofs.

    And we will eliminate lying the same way we created property and eliminated violence and theft. And the same way we created contracts and law, and eliminated fraud.

    Fukuyama was wrong. The end of history is the truthful civilization.

    And we are going to birth it.

    And I hope that birth is painful. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 08:45:00 UTC

  • LAWS PROHIBIT INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER – CONTRACTS EXCHANGE RIGHTS. In writing a new

    LAWS PROHIBIT INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER – CONTRACTS EXCHANGE RIGHTS.

    In writing a new constitution, we can easily deprive the government(producers of commons) and the judiciary(adjudication of law) of the ability to make law. The only laws that can possibly exist are those that prohibit a means of free riding (parasitism/imposing costs). And those laws must be found (discovered), theorized.

    Conversely, all positive rights can only possibly exist as contractual provisions in matters of exchange. The justness of contracts is something that we know how to do, and have done throughout our history.

    Now we can, each of us, either negotiate directly, or grant to some person, or some party, the right to negotiate contracts on our behalf. And to be bound by the contract that they negotiate.

    But in no case can I make a contract (a negotiation) that is unlawful – imposes involuntary transfers, or externalizes involuntary transfers. Nor can I engage in deceit in such contracts, by means of verbal obscurantism (non-operational language, or in violation of strict construction, or its quantitative equivalent laundering and pooling (money).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 07:36:00 UTC

  • SATURATE THE ENVIRONMENT WITH TRUTHFULNESS – AND PEOPLE WILL ACT TRUTHFULLY (By:

    SATURATE THE ENVIRONMENT WITH TRUTHFULNESS – AND PEOPLE WILL ACT TRUTHFULLY

    (By: Curt Doolittle, Johannes Meixner and Andy Curzon)

    [W]e learn actions by doing. But we learn metaphysics by observation: our most effective learning-by-doing comes from recognizing patterns and habits of others in the environment. Things we take for granted as static, rather than open to our modification.

    So I tend to see something like programming as a skill that must be learned by doing. Some people are incapable no matter how many times they try to do something. Some people must do something many, many times. Others must do things a few times. Others just once or twice. Some of us can master concepts purely by imagining doing them a few times, and some of us by imagining the art of imagining doing them instantly. (We are very RARE.)

    We know that this progression roughy mirrors standard deviations of IQ around a ‘human minimum’ of around 106 (the start of Smart Fraction abilities: verbal articulation of ideas). And that makes sense when you realize that verbalizing complex ideas is in itself, the art of imagining operations in sequence.

    WHERE DOES THIS LEAD?

    Saturate the environment with truth and people will act truthfully.

    Saturate the environment with error the people will act erroneously.

    Saturate the environment with deception and the people will act deceptively.

    Saturate the environment with violence, and people will act violently.

    Because that is what it means to adapt to the environment..

    – Education was the first means of public broadcasting.

    – Reading was the next, but it was voluntary.

    – Radio was next and could be done without effort.

    – Television was next and it was a serotonin-producing drug, that made saturation effortless.

    – Today the curious can see confirmation and alliance in almost any alternate reality that they can imagine. In Advanced countries people live in their isolation chambers, listening to echoes.

    Saturation is the best teaching. But how do we ensure people are saturated by truths rather than falsehoods?

    We make untruthful speech a crime when placed into the commons. Deprive the environment of negativity, and people will not act negatively. And within one or two generations we will saturate people with truth.

    And as such we:

    Saturate the environment with truth and people will act truthfully.

    Saturate the environment with trust and people will act trustworthily.

    Saturate the environment with confidence and people will act confidently.

    Saturate the environment with certainty and people will act certainly. (pun!)

    Saturate the environment with assurance, and people will act assuredly.

    Saturate the environment with anything, and people will act likewise.

    So you see…. “after all, we’re all alike.”

    Education need not be interpersonal if it is environmental.

    The Propertarian Institute

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-27 11:27:00 UTC

  • WHAT YOU DO WITH “SMART” MATTERS – A LOT You can invest your neuronal developmen

    WHAT YOU DO WITH “SMART” MATTERS – A LOT

    You can invest your neuronal development in increasing the explanatory power of very narrow concepts, or invest your neuronal development in increasing the explanatory power of very broad concepts.

    There are THREE reasons why we produce many very smart people in narrow niches, and very few very smart people in broad concepts.

    1) First, the return on narrow specializations is cheaper and quicker, and the return on broad specializations is very expensive and takes much, much, longer – if any returns exist at all. It’s very difficult to produce a Toynbee or a Durant.

    2) Second, our education and our economies are organized to produce craftsmen for the industrial era – specialists, made possible and necessary by the entry of proles into the labor force, made possible by the harnessing of hydrocarbons.

    3) Third, our education system no longer produces aristocratic learning for aristocrats who must govern. Even our aristocratic universities (religious schools) teach the religion of the proles (equality, democracy, pseudoscience, and deception). Instead of teaching politics, ethics, morality, finance and law, so that we may rationally organize our production and rationally adjudicate our differences, with the least risk, loss, and friction in both production and adjudication.

    So I am daily saddened by the tragedy of the many very smart people I meet who fail to produce their potential, and the many proles who fail by attempting to exceed their capabilities and capacities – due to the false promises of their priesthood.

    The only choice one has is independent study: to read. By reading ‘know thyself’. By knowing thyself (relative to the abilities of others) to find a niche to profit from, and to gain wisdom to understand the broader arena of human affairs.

    It is very easy to choose between that which is good to read, and that which is not: read the works of aristocracy. They are scientific in that they were empirical. They are the only equals man has made.

    See “The Importance of Being Well Read No Matter What Your IQ”.

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/02/04/the-purpose-of-being-well-read-no-matter-what-your-iq/

    BECAUSE YOUR PRIESTHOOD: YOU ACADEMICS, PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS AND TEACHERS FAILED YOU – and they failed you in pursuit of selfish money and power.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-27 05:52:00 UTC

  • ART IS VERY CRITICIZABLE, AND LIKE MORALITY IT”S OBJECTIVELY BETTER OR WORSE (wo

    ART IS VERY CRITICIZABLE, AND LIKE MORALITY IT”S OBJECTIVELY BETTER OR WORSE

    (worth repeating)

    As for art theory it’s pretty simple stuff. You can read every significant tome on it in a month. I am honestly not sure that Rand’s book isn’t one of the best really, in retrospect.

    – Craftsmanship (skill in use of materials)

    – Design (aesthetics – skill in associative pre-cognitive patterns)

    – Content (meaning – skill in associative cognitive patterns)

    All art can be criticized on these three criteria. And in simplest terms, in all three dimensions:

    – Novel is better (innovation)

    – Parsimony is better (clarity)

    – More information is better (richness or density)

    – Monumental (level of public/social/political value)

    – Durable (the persistence of the work as a reference is better)

    – Uniqueness (the symbol that captures an excellence of a time and place)

    We tend to see these criteria as as ‘excellence’.

    Using these criteria, all:

    – Craft

    – Design

    – Art

    Can be compared and contrasted if not quantitatively(cardinally) at least qualitatively(ordinary).

    You would think not, but opinion in art coalesces just as do theories in science. While one might have one taste or another, it is very hard to study the whole of art history and not come to about the same conclusion as have all the others: These are clearly better and these are clearly not as good. But I PREFER these over the objectively better ones as they suit my taste.

    I hope this helps.

    If you try it, sort of by stack ranking any set of art pieces by the criteria above it will rapidly become clear to you that art criticism and scientific criticism are extremely similar endeavors.

    This fucks with the mind of sentimental people who desperately want an internal intuitionistic truth to appeal to – but it’s sad for them. I’m sorry.

    Art is just as open to criticism as any other work of man. There is just a lot of marginal indifference withing each strata of work.

    It’s very obvious after a while that the communists and socialists and feminists and postmodernists attacked art just as they attacked truth.

    ‘Cause they desperately wanna lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 13:35:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND INFORMATION THEORY (Guest Post) Eds: Kirill stated “well, yo

    PROPERTARIANISM AND INFORMATION THEORY

    (Guest Post)

    Eds: Kirill stated “well, you’ve unified science and social science. So how do we unify science, social science, and information theory”. (Pretty awesomely Nerdy question really!!!) He thought about if for a bit and sent me this post. And, maybe it’s hard to grasp the elegance of his point, but if you’re enough of a science wonk then you’ll see how brilliantly he puts it together (Despite English being his third language.)

    “FROM ENTROPY TO TRUTH TELLING”

    – Kirill Latish

    [E]ntropy is commonly understood as a measure of disorder. According to the second law of thermodynamics entropy of isolated system never decreases. Moreover. Hubble’s law tells us that Entropy of Universe tends to increase with time. And even more — the cosmological arrow of time points in the direction of the Universe’s expansion, or in other words — in the direction of Entropy increasing.

    So we can assume that everything tends to Chaos – most stable state. That means that Evolution – is expressible as “a process of chaos production”.

    This statement looks absurd from the first look. You can argue – we investigate the Universe, learn more and more about Nature, produce new and new things (read – order). But let’s not forget about costs. Each bit of partial knowledge that we accumulate, each product that we produce – is the result of an action, and that action, according to the second law of thermodynamics, can only increase Entropy. So that means it increased the amount of Chaos.

    **Everything we do leads to increasing amount of disorder in the Universe**

    From the other side we can say that Intelligence level of a person is amount of Chaos produced by this person. At the same time Intelligence level is amount of True facts that person knows and can use. And there are only two ways how we can “earn” Truth facts – empirical, or analytical:

    – Empirical – try to get Truth from experiments.

    – Analytical – try to get Truth statements from the information flow around us.

    COMMUNICATION

    Information flow exists only because we communicate with each other. So let’s ask – why do we communicate? And the answer is fairly simple – it is profitable for us. In many senses. From the beginning of our history we collaborate because it is much easier to survive in groups. It is easier to defeat our enemies, easier to learn, easier to resist to unpleasant environment conditions, and easier to produce goods and services of all kinds.

    And so we can make two key conclusions:

    1. In groups we can do more than apart – so the group is producing more disorder than all members individually.

    2. For all our lives we try to resist the Universe – we are trying to not become fuel for Chaos.

    TRUTH TELLING

    And let’s think about difference between telling Truth and Lying. Truth telling is expensive in short term perspective because you have to check facts, and telling A lie doesn’t cost anything. But in long term perspective Truth telling gives you a competitive advantage by giving you the ability to use knowledge against your enemies.

    And it is only one real choice that you have in your life – tell the truth and face up with all costs on this way, or lie and become a fuel for the Universe. From that point choice is obvious. But the problem is that we are almost always using greedy algorithms trying to solve our problems. But that doesn’t work in long-term perspective – and moreover – leads to defeat in the main battle in our life – Battle for survival.

    So now we have very clear, long-term, survival strategy:

    ***Collaborate with society, operate only with truthful facts, try to attract maximum number of participants to your group in long term***

    Kirill Latish,

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-24 08:17:00 UTC

  • (reverse-trolling ant-russian rant) That’s why I have time to hang out with you

    (reverse-trolling ant-russian rant)

    That’s why I have time to hang out with you Munchkins for the practical purpose of teaching other people how to counter Russian propaganda constructed on lies and false moral equivalency. 😉 I mean, if you’re talking Russia, it’s pretty hard to find target with a greater record of incompetence. So I feel a little like John Stewart making fun of Bush. It’s too easy. Too much material: The white people who failed (again, and again, and again).

    You wanna keep attacking me (ad hominem fallacy), and it’s ok. I understand that you’re unable to defend Russia rationally, and have to attack me personally. Only people who would engage in false moral equivalency would resort to personal attacks as a means of avoiding the reality of the country that they’re defending.

    But you’re unable to see what’s sitting in front of you. I’m doing exactly what I said I was doing, for exactly the reasons I said. Which is why it doesn’t make sense to you. You can’t imagine someone would spend his time on such a thing. And no one would, unless it was for illustrative purposes.

    Russia is a sick country with a sick populace, and none of us cares as long as that sick country doesn’t try to usual tactic of creating nationalism to cover for its sickness by attacking neighbors. This is the technique used by idiots who lack the competence to run their countries competitively. And that is what Russia does: distract from the local troubles by creating an external demon that does not exist.

    The west’s strategy is to create successful consumer capitalist economies that are constrained from ill actions by the value of international trade. This forces human rights, and prosperity into the world.

    Now, it may be true that the west overextended this approach in the belief that all civilizations (even Islam) are capable of development. And it may be true that the west foolishly advocates democracy rather than consumer capitalism and human rights regardless of means of political organization. And it may be true that the Americans talk about the carrot (use democracy to select the government of your choice) without the stick (if you choose a government that violates the international goal of peaceful commercial cooperation then we will punish you very, very harshly for choosing that government). But that does not distract from the fact that a the general direction that the west has taken the world is to consumer capitalism and human rights. And has dragged humanity out of ignorance poverty and totalitarianism kicking and screaming.

    On the one hand we have a positive influence that makes mistakes (the west) and a negative influence that can’t do anything right at all (Russia), who has a “black-thumb” when it comes to government (everything it touches gets worse).

    Ukraine has had enough of “Russia’s Black Thumb”. We will take the problem of democracy in the midst of prosperity, rather than the problem of Russian corruption in the midst of poverty. That’s not a very hard decision to make. The west is naive but prosperous and fixable. Russia is a collection of hopeless corrupt incompetence that has murdered tens of millions of its own, and untold numbers of its neighbors, and set eastern Europe behind by the centuries it will take to recover.

    I don’t hate anyone. I just state the facts. I love mankind, that’s why I want to save as many as possible from the sick and evil people we call ‘Russians’.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-23 02:51:00 UTC

  • TRUTHFULNESS AND TRUTH (h/t Francesco Principi) Honesty does depend on the indiv

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/05/29/definitions-truth/HONESTY, TRUTHFULNESS AND TRUTH

    (h/t Francesco Principi)

    Honesty does depend on the individual’s abilties, yes.

    – Truthfulness is a skill because man evolved to lie and negotiate, not to tell the truth – truth telling is expensive.

    – The ‘truth’ refers to a description that is ultimately parsimonious without being tautological (a name). And we can never know we speak the truth.

    We can know we speak truthfully, and we can know we speak honestly. But others cannot know you speak honestly (without questioning:falsifying), only that you speak truthfully: that your testimony is constructed to be free of error, imagination, bias and deceit. None of us can know we speak the truth, even if we speak it, because there is always more information available in the future.

    We use the word “True” very frequently, just like the word “is” but almost none of us can state in operational terms (existentially possible terms) what those two words mean. We use them as uncomprehended norms, not as truthful (warrantied) terms.

    So as much as everyone would like to confuse honesty with truth, and due diligence as truth, honesty, diligent testimony, and the truth are three very different things.

    Just as deduction, induction and abduction are very different things.

    —

    FROM http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/05/29/definitions-truth/

    —

    [D]EFINITIONS OF TRUTH.

    [T]RUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, would provide the same testimony.

    [T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, and warranty free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, would provide the same testimony.

    [H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, would provide the same testimony.

    [I]ntuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).

    [P]reference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).

    [O]pinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.

    [P]osition: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.

    [D]emonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-20 07:16:00 UTC