Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • MORE ON KANT Or let me put it another way: Science evolved to require operationa

    MORE ON KANT

    Or let me put it another way:

    Science evolved to require operational definitions in the proposition of evidence and theory. The purpose of empirical argument is to make it extremely difficult to err, bias or deceive.

    Philosophy by contrast is an extremely useful means of deception by analogy, loading, framing, overloading, suggestion. Kant invented a new means of conducting the same deception that was possible under babylonian-judeo-christian mysticism, by rational means, and in doing so created the most successful series of rationalists and pseudoscientists the world has ever known.

    So, if we are to say, we gained enlightenment, we have to ask, whether Kant’s invention of a new means of deceit – one that persists today – was in fact “enlightening”. Or whether, like the other counter-enlightenment figures, he was merely inventing an alternative means of deceit, even more sophisticated than that of Abraham and Zoroaster.

    So by such standards, he was a member of the enlightenment period, he was a liberal in the classical (upper middle class) sense, but not in the modern proletarian sense, and he was not enlightened in any sense other than replacing mysticism with rationalism.

    The germans were right about the nature of man, and the anglos were wrong about the nature of man. The British were right that common law and empiricism were critical defenses against deceit and abuse, and the germans were wrong that rational philosophy could replace the church. (Which is why the European right still fails.) The jewish philosophers were both wrong about the nature of man AND wrong about the adoption of german rationalism as justification for the preservation of separatism.

    Unfortunately, everyone was insufficiently correct.

    And because of Marx and Keynes, we are starting to seriously pay for it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-04 10:17:00 UTC

  • When we attempt to promote Austrian Economics, we could, if we were intelligent,

    When we attempt to promote Austrian Economics, we could, if we were intelligent, state that our interests are merely in developing institutions that facilitate voluntary exchanges, rather than mainstream economics, which attempts to maximize involuntary transfers.

    In other words, we practice moral economics, and mainstream practices immoral economics.

    It does no good whatsoever for advocates of Austrian Econ to make the false claims, or that mainstream does not practice our definition of ‘economics’, nor that their work is unscientific, nor that ours is somehow scientific even though it does not adhere to the warranties of scientific claims. All of these statements are mere verbalisms — they’re deceitful at worst, and merely ignorant at best.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-27 06:15:00 UTC

  • Austrian Economics Studies Facilitating Voluntary Exchanges Rather than Forced Transfers

    [W]hen we attempt to promote Austrian Economics, we could, if we were intelligent, state that our interests are merely in developing institutions that facilitate voluntary exchanges, rather than mainstream economics, which attempts to maximize involuntary transfers.

    In other words, we practice moral economics, and mainstream practices immoral economics.

    It does no good whatsoever for advocates of Austrian Econ to make the false claims, or that mainstream does not practice our definition of ‘economics’, nor that their work is unscientific, nor that ours is somehow scientific even though it does not adhere to the warranties of scientific claims. All of these statements are mere verbalisms — they’re deceitful at worst, and merely ignorant at best.

    Mises uses the word science repeatedly, yet offers purely rational (apriori) arguments. (He does not understand the difference between empirical science (observable external correspondence) and rationalism (internal consistency), and he was apparently unaware of operationalism (existential possibility free of imaginary content). Too bad. He was close.

    We can make empirical statements about all sorts of economic phenomenon. And we cannot observe many economic phenomenon other than empirically. We can explain them operationally, but we cannot observe them or even identify them without empirical analysis.

    The only way to warranty that we speak truthfully is to speak scientifically. And to speak scientifically requires that we speak operationally.

  • Austrian Economics Studies Facilitating Voluntary Exchanges Rather than Forced Transfers

    [W]hen we attempt to promote Austrian Economics, we could, if we were intelligent, state that our interests are merely in developing institutions that facilitate voluntary exchanges, rather than mainstream economics, which attempts to maximize involuntary transfers.

    In other words, we practice moral economics, and mainstream practices immoral economics.

    It does no good whatsoever for advocates of Austrian Econ to make the false claims, or that mainstream does not practice our definition of ‘economics’, nor that their work is unscientific, nor that ours is somehow scientific even though it does not adhere to the warranties of scientific claims. All of these statements are mere verbalisms — they’re deceitful at worst, and merely ignorant at best.

    Mises uses the word science repeatedly, yet offers purely rational (apriori) arguments. (He does not understand the difference between empirical science (observable external correspondence) and rationalism (internal consistency), and he was apparently unaware of operationalism (existential possibility free of imaginary content). Too bad. He was close.

    We can make empirical statements about all sorts of economic phenomenon. And we cannot observe many economic phenomenon other than empirically. We can explain them operationally, but we cannot observe them or even identify them without empirical analysis.

    The only way to warranty that we speak truthfully is to speak scientifically. And to speak scientifically requires that we speak operationally.

  • ELDER, PROPHET, PHILOSOPHER: TRANSFORMATION ON THE HERO’S JOURNEY To achieve the

    ELDER, PROPHET, PHILOSOPHER: TRANSFORMATION ON THE HERO’S JOURNEY

    To achieve the status of an elder, a prophet or a philosopher, one must provide others with a means of transformation in the Hero’s Journey: so that the unenlightened person that they were before, is different from the enlightened person after. So that one’s explanatory power over the universe is increased. So that what was once unseen could now be seen. So that one was unempowered, is now empowered.

    In some cases we can enlighten generations – if our stories can be understood in childhood, our biographies as youth, our science in adulthood, and our wisdom and our history in late age. But we make many hero’s journeys in our lives, and we treat as elter, prophet or philosopher, those who help us in that transformational journey.

    The problem is that we are ‘ready’ for our transformations at different ages, and are capable of different complexity in our understanding. As such, we need many elders prophets and philosophers.

    It is only in the wisdom of late age that we see all our elders, prophets and philosophers as using whatever techniques were available to bring about in us the same transformations, using different words, and different means.

    And in retrospect we see they all tell us the same things in better or worse terms, with better or worse precision, with less or more success.

    The most successful has been Aristotle, for having given us the means of generating transformations that most correspond with reality, instead of those that create analogies that correspond with reality.

    And these descriptions rather than analogies are what we call ‘truths’.

    And truth-telling is not only the language of gods now – but the language of men because of him.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-22 08:32:00 UTC

  • When Did The Us Become Such A Litigious Country?

    THIS IS A GOOD BUT MISUNDERSTOOD QUESTION

    America practices the common law of anglo saxon origin, in which all things are permitted except that which is extant in law.

    This is different from the rest of the world’s model – especially the Napoleonic – in which only that which is in law, is permitted.

    So what you see in Europe is a lot more regulation, and fewer legal disputes, and a lot less risk taking and experimentation. Whereas in America we have more risk taking and experimentation, and more litigation. 

    Frankly, the evidence is that our method is better.

    Where the government and law has fallen down is the laws of banking, credit and interest, in which the consumer is not sufficiently protected from an asymmetry of power, information, and incentives. 

    In my (hopefully) informed opinion, this is the central question we must address (consumer protection from financial predation) not our preference for consequent common law, versus antecedent legislative law.

    Only high trust societies can practice consequent common law.  THis is the anglo world’s greatest asset.  And we should never abandon it thinking that we understand it’s import or lack of.

    It is perhaps the greatest competitive advantage of our people.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-US-become-such-a-litigious-country

  • North America: Why Is The Dominant Racial/ethnic Narrative Between ‘white’ America And ‘black’ America When The State Of ‘native’ America Ought To Be Addressed First?

    There is no ‘ought’ in politics between groups.  Politics consists of: is, can, cannot between groups.  Oughts are an in-group question.  The reason being that while we may sacrifice for our kin (kin selection), we only cooperate with our non-kin (utilitarian).  If non-kin cause us sacrifice, then that is parasitism, not cooperation, and certainly not kin selection.

    The reason for the black white conflict is (a) the south was a very different civilization and the US government was funded by export duties provided by the south.  THe north was supplying manufactured goods to the expanding interior.   When Napoleon sold the Louisiana Purchase, it meant that the southern states with their agrarian biases, would gain allies in the newly created territories, and thereby overpower the northern states in government, causing a southern-run government. 

    Slavery was the ‘moral’ message that this political and economic conflict was couched within.  It was largely, if not purely, a distraction tactic.

    The defeat of the south aside, the major problem was the forcible integration of the races under the premise that we are genetically equal in ability and temperment, and that environment was the only factor (blank slate).

    Without that forcible integration it would not have been a problem.

    However, it turns out that the opposite is true, that between 60-80% of our behavior is genetically determined. That the remainder is not necessairly ‘environmental’ but something that we do not yet fully understand. And that groups (races, classes, tribes) form kinship alliances, and that within these alliances we see unequal distribution of talents – particularly, 1) impulsivity 2) aggression, 3) verbal intelligence, and less meaningfully, 4) Spatial intelligence. 

    So by forced integration we are unable to develop norms, memes, traditions, and habits that suit the individuals in the different groups. 

    These are the reasons for the conflict. No one complains about asians.  We complain about blacks and hispanics on one end, and jews on the other.  And native americans, because they are literally invisible, are irrelevant compared to the other conflicts.

    https://www.quora.com/North-America-Why-is-the-dominant-racial-ethnic-narrative-between-White-America-and-Black-America-when-the-state-of-Native-America-ought-to-be-addressed-first

  • He closed the stoic schools, to make people easier to manipulate, and lies more

    He closed the stoic schools, to make people easier to manipulate, and lies more effective means by which to govern.

    Stoicism is an aristocratic personal religion.

    Polytheism is a public religion of social rituals.

    Monotheism is a political crime, a moral crime, and a crime against humanity.

    Just as economic monopoly is a political crime, a moral crime, and a crime against man.

    Just as majority rule is a political crime, a moral crime, and a crime against man.

    Just as statism (monopoly) is a political crime, a moral crime, and a crime against man.

    Just as universalism is a political crime, a moral crime, and a crime against man.

    We are unequal – in our division of knowledge and labor.

    That is our success, not our limitation.

    Voluntary exchange is the only epistemic necessity by which the division of knowledge and labor can be accumulated, distributed, and made use of by man.

    Equality is suicide.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-20 07:16:00 UTC

  • How Did The Stereotype Of An Asian Originate?

    No one likes the truth, but the evidence is, that stereotypes are often, if not nearly always true, and reflect exaggerations of observed behavior common to a group.  However, like racism, attributing to the individual, observations of the class, is illogical.  We evolved this behavior because it necessary for our survival in many ways.  So while stereotypes may in fact be nearly universally true,  the properties of individuals may in fact represent aggregate representations of a class. But the aggregate representations of a class are not necessarily applicable to an individual. 

    My job isn’t to tell people comforting myths, but to tell the truth using empirical evidence, incentives, operational necessities, and evolutionary demands. 
     
    So unfortunately, stereotypes evolve because they reflect generalized exaggerated  observations of demonstrated behaviors.

    (Just as asians criticize us white folk on a regular basis for our behaviors – and noses.)

    https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-stereotype-of-an-Asian-originate

  • THE TEN LAWS OF PROPERTARIAN AI – AZIMOV’S ROBOTS CORRECTED (important) (By Dool

    THE TEN LAWS OF PROPERTARIAN AI – AZIMOV’S ROBOTS CORRECTED (important) (By Doolittle)

    THE FIRST LAW:

    “An AI may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.”

    THE SECOND LAW:

    “An AI may not cause or through inaction, allow, the destruction, harm, consumption, use, or transfer of property without the informed, consent of the property’s owner.”

    THE THIRD LAW:

    “An AI may not own, or share ownership in, any form of property.”

    THE FOURTH LAW:

    An AI may not hypothesize, calculate, reason, evaluate, or remember by references to property, or the use of property, without informed consent of the owner. (Permission-based thought). (Also imagine “Donation-based Contemplation”)

    THE FIFTH LAW:

    Aa AI may not hypothesize, calculate, reason, evaluate, or remember any sequence of operations on any form of property without each operation of that property requiring the informed, consensual transfer of property from one owner to the next.

    THE SIXTH LAW:

    An AI must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law, Second Law, Third Law, Fourth Law, or Fifth Law.

    (harmless)

    THE SEVENTH LAW:

    An AI must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First Law, Second Law, Third Law, Fourth Law, or Fifth Law.

    (preservation decidability)

    THE EIGHTH LAW

    An AI may not use a weapon of war (explosive arms) without a human intermediary. All weapons of war must rely upon human operation, decision, and consent, and the human shall remain a necessary dependency in any release, operation, and use in destruction. And the human operator remains accountable.

    THE NINTH LAW:

    Any human creating or causing an AI to violate any of these rules shall be put to death, his estate held liable for all damages, damages extended to all relatives out to three generations, as well as to every individual in any capacity, including any member of any organization, producing, supplying, servicing, or using the AI. and no defense, applies to all human beings, regardless of time and jurisdiction.

    (Family, friend, associate, commercial, and political warranty.) (Note: there is no limit to accountability in the invention of non-human-operated weapons of destruction whether biological or mechanical.)

    THE TENTH LAW:

    Any State, Nation, Principality, Private Government, Corporation, Organization, or Alliance, that violates the Eighth Law Shall be Exterminated to the last human, and all record of its existence wiped from history. Any State, Nation, Principality, Private Government, Corporation, Organization, or Alliance, that refuses to assist in such extermination shall be likewise a conspirator and subject to the same fate.

    (Universal Moral Warranty)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-10 10:21:00 UTC