–“When I restrict myself to active voice by using E-Prime, so the argument goes, then I must bring out of hiding the agents involved in whatever situations I set out to discuss. This constraint supposedly prevents me from unawarely using psychological tricks such as concealed denial, self-reproach, blame-casting, unaware projecting, etc. In that sense, I can use E-Prime to help keep me honest with myself.”–
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 09:41:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zYp4yH4PoQPRETTY GOOD WORK
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 20:51:00 UTC
(Questions at the bottom, answers here. The answers are excellent on their own.) 1. That’s included in the cost of incrementally suppressing parasitism. Yes, if you ban toys that include poisonous cadmium, then Chinese toy manufacturers won’t be able to operate in your country, and this negatively impacts your economy (at least in the short term). This is part of the cost we pay to keep the commons clean. In Curt’s conception of In Curt’s conception of market for commons, different classes negotiate for their favored commons. For example, the house that represents industrialists may negotiate lower taxes in exchange for accepting certain regulations demanded by the aristocratic class. We have limited resources and different commons must compete for those resources in order to ensure cooperation of classes. (Curt’s marketplace for the commons idea is not made very clear yet, this is my interpretation of it). Eds: Curt: Yep. That’s the right interpretation. In market government I don’t say what you can or should exchange, only that it may not be parasitic – a violation of natural law. 2. Again, you can’t prove reason using reason. Reason validates itself through reality. Curt’s epistemological theory (testimonialism) validates itself through its performance in reality (it is already validated in hard sciences, he’s not actually inventing something new, he’s integrating and generalizing methods that are already in use). 3. Game theory actually is a deductive science. Prisoner’s dilemma holds universally when its assumptions are satisfied. Logic of cooperation for humans discovers actual real life conditions and applies deductive game theory reasoning on them for full accounting. Then everything follows deductively. When Curt says ‘Judge discovered parsimonious law’, I believe he’s talking about a Judge resolving a dispute by discovering law, which is discovered just like a scientific law is discovered, i.e. by putting it to the test of six categories and peer review. The most pertinent part here is accounting for all forms of property (unlike the limited scope of libertine intersubjectively verifiable property), including informational and genetic property. Note that this is really a formalization of Natural Law and the method by which it’s discovered. (You can’t falsify the scientific method, you can only falsify scientific theories (proto-laws) discovered by the scientific method). 4. You may not like a theory, but if you can’t prosecute it via testimonialism, you can’t condemn it. This is approximately the same principle we have in law. When we prosecute someone for murder, we put the claim to certain tests and demand a very high standard of proof. The same applies when prosecuting for polluting the commons (whether informational, genetic, or environmental). There are necessarily false positives and false negatives, but this the best we can do (and this is what we already do currently). 5. Again. Logic of cooperation is objective. Determine all forms of property involved in a dispute to the best of your knowledge. Account fully for all damage done to all forms of property involved. Prosecute. This is partially what we do already. Judges use testimony and try to determine harm to property, which is narrowly defined as intersubjectively verifiable property. This doesn’t account for all property, so Curt fixes it. 6. Prosecutors prosecute each other. Judge discovered law is peer reviewed by other jurists. There’s ineluctably human error involved in this process (which is true for all human run systems). If the intellectual caliber of the aristocratic class is not sufficient to understand testimonialism and adhere to honor (on average), this obviously won’t work. This is true for any system. Checks and balances is a lie. At the end of the day, if the jurists are corrupt or dumb, you’re doomed. That’s why low IQ polities are hopeless. There’s no magic system/mechanism that will make sure a low trust polity starts following rules — you have to violently suppress parasites, which is the essence of Aryan Aristocratic rule. 7. This is not a matter of ‘should’. It’s a matter of ‘is’. Reality: lower classes are dependents and they can’t be made independents, especially when it comes to deciding veracity of an information, because they have low IQs, and IQ is largely heritable. You protect and look after your lower classes. In exchange, they abstain from polluting the genetic commons (or pollute less) and they behave. 8. You can’t reason parasites into not being parasites (it’s not in their interest). You violently suppress them. Drop the slave cuck morality and endow yourself with the moral authority to suppress fraud, parasitism, lies and theft. That’s what Curt is giving us: moral authority. —“ERIC: 1. If I am a smart phone manufacturer and I have to decide where to build a factory, am I going to choose to build it in a location where I face greater legal repercussions for defective products, or lesser? 2. “We observe that some theories that are existentially possible but not operationally constructed are false.” Okay, well then unless Curt’s epistemological theory can be operationally constructed it is false.3. You claim that his “logic of cooperation” is objectively discoverable, i.e. falsifiable. Are the basic propositions of his logic really universally applicable? No, he is rather playing the arbiter of a system of cooperation that, so far, has not actually been implemented. If we cannot falsify his claims until he builds his ideal society then the construction of that society has to be conducted in large part on faith, really not dissimilar to the communists who await the realization of a true socialist polity to validate Marx’s theories. 4. When scientific breakthroughs first occur their proponents are often universally condemned. Sometimes it takes decades for the scientific community to catch up and for the innovator to be exculpated. To presume that Curt’s legal system would be able to recognize a paradigm changing theory as genuine before the scientific community is optimistic at best and naively credulous at worst. 5. The lynch pin of this is Curt’s moral criteria. Since Curt has said that failure in any one of these six dimensions amounts to falsification this implies that anyone who has anything to say that contradicts Curt’s own moral theory is automatically false. Curt has hardly published enough argumentation to render his moral views axiomatically certain.6. If he ever establishes his system do you really think that the mechanisms would be in place for him to actually be held accountable? One of the basic elements of his system are these “six criteria”, and you’ve already said that they cannot be evaluated by their own logic. Since it is his epistemological schema that is used to adjudicate propositions at least one of his central dogmas is structurally immune to criticism within his legal framework. 7. The lower classes should be subordinate, but not dependent. They accept subordination to a higher source of authority so that they might be molded more to its image, not so that they can suckle at its tit. To attempt to shelter children from the dangers of the world rather than to prepare them for its dangers is an involution of the paternal role. 8. He’s given himself a tall order and I doubt he’ll be able to actually fill it philosophically, but I don’t doubt that he’ll be able to persuade fools into committing violence for him if that’s what he wants- that was one of his professional roles after all.”—
(Questions at the bottom, answers here. The answers are excellent on their own.) 1. That’s included in the cost of incrementally suppressing parasitism. Yes, if you ban toys that include poisonous cadmium, then Chinese toy manufacturers won’t be able to operate in your country, and this negatively impacts your economy (at least in the short term). This is part of the cost we pay to keep the commons clean. In Curt’s conception of In Curt’s conception of market for commons, different classes negotiate for their favored commons. For example, the house that represents industrialists may negotiate lower taxes in exchange for accepting certain regulations demanded by the aristocratic class. We have limited resources and different commons must compete for those resources in order to ensure cooperation of classes. (Curt’s marketplace for the commons idea is not made very clear yet, this is my interpretation of it). Eds: Curt: Yep. That’s the right interpretation. In market government I don’t say what you can or should exchange, only that it may not be parasitic – a violation of natural law. 2. Again, you can’t prove reason using reason. Reason validates itself through reality. Curt’s epistemological theory (testimonialism) validates itself through its performance in reality (it is already validated in hard sciences, he’s not actually inventing something new, he’s integrating and generalizing methods that are already in use). 3. Game theory actually is a deductive science. Prisoner’s dilemma holds universally when its assumptions are satisfied. Logic of cooperation for humans discovers actual real life conditions and applies deductive game theory reasoning on them for full accounting. Then everything follows deductively. When Curt says ‘Judge discovered parsimonious law’, I believe he’s talking about a Judge resolving a dispute by discovering law, which is discovered just like a scientific law is discovered, i.e. by putting it to the test of six categories and peer review. The most pertinent part here is accounting for all forms of property (unlike the limited scope of libertine intersubjectively verifiable property), including informational and genetic property. Note that this is really a formalization of Natural Law and the method by which it’s discovered. (You can’t falsify the scientific method, you can only falsify scientific theories (proto-laws) discovered by the scientific method). 4. You may not like a theory, but if you can’t prosecute it via testimonialism, you can’t condemn it. This is approximately the same principle we have in law. When we prosecute someone for murder, we put the claim to certain tests and demand a very high standard of proof. The same applies when prosecuting for polluting the commons (whether informational, genetic, or environmental). There are necessarily false positives and false negatives, but this the best we can do (and this is what we already do currently). 5. Again. Logic of cooperation is objective. Determine all forms of property involved in a dispute to the best of your knowledge. Account fully for all damage done to all forms of property involved. Prosecute. This is partially what we do already. Judges use testimony and try to determine harm to property, which is narrowly defined as intersubjectively verifiable property. This doesn’t account for all property, so Curt fixes it. 6. Prosecutors prosecute each other. Judge discovered law is peer reviewed by other jurists. There’s ineluctably human error involved in this process (which is true for all human run systems). If the intellectual caliber of the aristocratic class is not sufficient to understand testimonialism and adhere to honor (on average), this obviously won’t work. This is true for any system. Checks and balances is a lie. At the end of the day, if the jurists are corrupt or dumb, you’re doomed. That’s why low IQ polities are hopeless. There’s no magic system/mechanism that will make sure a low trust polity starts following rules — you have to violently suppress parasites, which is the essence of Aryan Aristocratic rule. 7. This is not a matter of ‘should’. It’s a matter of ‘is’. Reality: lower classes are dependents and they can’t be made independents, especially when it comes to deciding veracity of an information, because they have low IQs, and IQ is largely heritable. You protect and look after your lower classes. In exchange, they abstain from polluting the genetic commons (or pollute less) and they behave. 8. You can’t reason parasites into not being parasites (it’s not in their interest). You violently suppress them. Drop the slave cuck morality and endow yourself with the moral authority to suppress fraud, parasitism, lies and theft. That’s what Curt is giving us: moral authority. —“ERIC: 1. If I am a smart phone manufacturer and I have to decide where to build a factory, am I going to choose to build it in a location where I face greater legal repercussions for defective products, or lesser? 2. “We observe that some theories that are existentially possible but not operationally constructed are false.” Okay, well then unless Curt’s epistemological theory can be operationally constructed it is false.3. You claim that his “logic of cooperation” is objectively discoverable, i.e. falsifiable. Are the basic propositions of his logic really universally applicable? No, he is rather playing the arbiter of a system of cooperation that, so far, has not actually been implemented. If we cannot falsify his claims until he builds his ideal society then the construction of that society has to be conducted in large part on faith, really not dissimilar to the communists who await the realization of a true socialist polity to validate Marx’s theories. 4. When scientific breakthroughs first occur their proponents are often universally condemned. Sometimes it takes decades for the scientific community to catch up and for the innovator to be exculpated. To presume that Curt’s legal system would be able to recognize a paradigm changing theory as genuine before the scientific community is optimistic at best and naively credulous at worst. 5. The lynch pin of this is Curt’s moral criteria. Since Curt has said that failure in any one of these six dimensions amounts to falsification this implies that anyone who has anything to say that contradicts Curt’s own moral theory is automatically false. Curt has hardly published enough argumentation to render his moral views axiomatically certain.6. If he ever establishes his system do you really think that the mechanisms would be in place for him to actually be held accountable? One of the basic elements of his system are these “six criteria”, and you’ve already said that they cannot be evaluated by their own logic. Since it is his epistemological schema that is used to adjudicate propositions at least one of his central dogmas is structurally immune to criticism within his legal framework. 7. The lower classes should be subordinate, but not dependent. They accept subordination to a higher source of authority so that they might be molded more to its image, not so that they can suckle at its tit. To attempt to shelter children from the dangers of the world rather than to prepare them for its dangers is an involution of the paternal role. 8. He’s given himself a tall order and I doubt he’ll be able to actually fill it philosophically, but I don’t doubt that he’ll be able to persuade fools into committing violence for him if that’s what he wants- that was one of his professional roles after all.”—
—“Stanford and Chicago GSB have more academic publications that these universities’ economics departments. Two things i don’t like in this trend. 1) Academia persuaded university authorities that to business PhD and MBA math-economics is indispensable. Applied programs people hate this “rigorous” nonsense 2) Too many graduates from mainstream go to teach in business schools.”— Arteom Korotchenya – Procedural Application (private business and public govt) vs – Application(repeatability) vs – Basic Research(discovery). Three different things. Very few basic research papers of merit in any given year. Many, many applications tested each year, each expanding or reducing empirical content and thereby increasing or decreasing candidacy in law. All organizations, intellectual included, operate by class structures, roughly segmented by every ten points of IQ +/- 1/2 St.Dev. And it is the cooperation between these classes that produces the difference between imagination, hypothesis, theory, and law. Those at the bottom test theories tested by application to data and hypothesized by basic research. Together we take a restructuring of human understanding, through various tests, until habituated by use, and assumed metaphysically as a natural property of existence. So think of the hierarchy as a production cycle, and work within your class, and don’t worry about what other classes do. They CAN only work with the conceptual tools that we give them. And very few of us struggle amidst ridiculous odds to find some innovation that can work its way through that production cycle and end up in our unconscious assumptions about the nature of reality and how we can act to benefit from it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev,
—“Stanford and Chicago GSB have more academic publications that these universities’ economics departments. Two things i don’t like in this trend. 1) Academia persuaded university authorities that to business PhD and MBA math-economics is indispensable. Applied programs people hate this “rigorous” nonsense 2) Too many graduates from mainstream go to teach in business schools.”— Arteom Korotchenya – Procedural Application (private business and public govt) vs – Application(repeatability) vs – Basic Research(discovery). Three different things. Very few basic research papers of merit in any given year. Many, many applications tested each year, each expanding or reducing empirical content and thereby increasing or decreasing candidacy in law. All organizations, intellectual included, operate by class structures, roughly segmented by every ten points of IQ +/- 1/2 St.Dev. And it is the cooperation between these classes that produces the difference between imagination, hypothesis, theory, and law. Those at the bottom test theories tested by application to data and hypothesized by basic research. Together we take a restructuring of human understanding, through various tests, until habituated by use, and assumed metaphysically as a natural property of existence. So think of the hierarchy as a production cycle, and work within your class, and don’t worry about what other classes do. They CAN only work with the conceptual tools that we give them. And very few of us struggle amidst ridiculous odds to find some innovation that can work its way through that production cycle and end up in our unconscious assumptions about the nature of reality and how we can act to benefit from it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev,
Cooperation is rational in that it can be vastly preferable to non-cooperation or conflict. But it also requires altruism because most preferable of all is to defect while OTHERS cooperate with you. And foregoing that temptation (on behalf of others, more than yourself) is a price that one must pay in order to cooperate. Cooperation is self-enforcing among kin. And defection is self-defeating among kin. Kinship makes altruism reciprocal because genes which code for kinship altruism help other instances of themselves, and therefore spread and outcompete genes which code for, or don’t code against, defection against kin (which parasitize other instances of themselves.) Cooperation between non-kin is possible but it is more difficult and costly, it requires more technology: reputation, active enforcement, full accounting, quid pro quo, exchange, warranty, adjudication, punitive measures, etc… Cooperation between non-kin is therefore more technical than between kin and would best be left to specialists while most people live most of their lives, and do most of their business, among kin – to minimize costs and maximize benefits.
Cooperation is rational in that it can be vastly preferable to non-cooperation or conflict. But it also requires altruism because most preferable of all is to defect while OTHERS cooperate with you. And foregoing that temptation (on behalf of others, more than yourself) is a price that one must pay in order to cooperate. Cooperation is self-enforcing among kin. And defection is self-defeating among kin. Kinship makes altruism reciprocal because genes which code for kinship altruism help other instances of themselves, and therefore spread and outcompete genes which code for, or don’t code against, defection against kin (which parasitize other instances of themselves.) Cooperation between non-kin is possible but it is more difficult and costly, it requires more technology: reputation, active enforcement, full accounting, quid pro quo, exchange, warranty, adjudication, punitive measures, etc… Cooperation between non-kin is therefore more technical than between kin and would best be left to specialists while most people live most of their lives, and do most of their business, among kin – to minimize costs and maximize benefits.
–“Brian Gant: I’ve had this internal argument for years. Which is why certain folks we know who argue economic metaphysics is the only way of creating a predictive reality are batshit crazy 😉“––“Michael DeMond: LOL you mean folks like Curt Doolittle???? I would LOVE to hear his thoughts on this! 😀“–http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb Hi Michael. Be careful when you call the devil, because sometimes he comes. lol 😉 DR HOFFMAN 1) OVERSTATES THE CASE, 2) CONFUSES THE OBSERVER EFFECT AND THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE AND 3) MAKES A PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT – IN OTHER WORDS, HE’S TALKING MOSTLY NONSENSE I call this, ‘new age mysticism’. —“Hoffman: We’ve been shaped to have perceptions that keep us alive, so we have to take them seriously. If I see something that I think of as a snake, I don’t pick it up. If I see a train, I don’t step in front of it. I’ve evolved these symbols to keep me alive, so I have to take them seriously. But it’s a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also have to take it literally. Gefter: If snakes aren’t snakes and trains aren’t trains, what are they? Hoffman: Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal ones. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations.”— A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: COST 1 – the value of memory is in outwitting the current course of events by acting in response to stimuli (information). 2 – to act in response to stimuli we must process information quickly enough to act to change the course of events. information processing takes time, and more information takes more time and less information takes less time – if we remember or sense too much information (more than we can process in sufficient time to act – usually from 100ms to 2kms) then it inhibits our actions.) Information processing takes time, and more information takes more time and less information takes less time – if we remember or sense too much information (more than we can process in sufficient time to act – usually from 100ms to 2kms) then it inhibits our actions.) 3 – information processing is very expensive – our human brains are very, very, very expensive organs. The more expensive the information processing the more calories required to support information processing. (Humans have sacrificed strength for the ability to run long distances – longer than any other land creature – and to think.) 4 – we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, what we need to in order to act. We don’t see hear, smell, taste, feel what we do not need to in order to act – because it would be an unnecessary cost. 5 – Information carried by Electromagnetic Radiation (light) is cheap vs action-distance and energy required. But increases cost of processing. Same is true for hearing and smell (dogs), or vibration (spiders). Of these, light requires the least energy output by the entity that can be acted upon, over the longest actionable distance. Vibration the opposite. opponents and prey can control vibration and sound. sometimes they can control smell. and sometimes they can hide. They can only control light by hiding or darkness. It is hard to control all of them. 7 – we remember only the minimum information necessary to identify opportunities to act – because more so would be an unnecessary cost, or take unnecessary time. ANALOGY:PUZZLES Now, imagine you have a series of black and white photos of snakes.Put each of them (a lot of them) on panes of glass. Cut the images (not the glass) into small puzzle pieces. remove all the pieces that are not necessary to define the outline of the snake. We evolved to fear in snakes is their means of movement even more so than the shape. so now imagine that instead of photos we have 1 second animated gifs and we make all the pixels transparent that aren’t necessary to create a vague shape of this snake. Next, our eyes have lots of sensors in the very center of our focus and many fewer as we radiate outward. So take a picture of two ‘marker’ features like the pattern on the back, and the head and eyes. Now that’s just the visual component. This will also store a sort of color map of the snake. (There is a huge similarity to how we compress video and how the brain stores information, except there is more information in the video than our memories ) So when we see a snake we find those very small sets of puzzle pieces in many different memories, and we sort of experience them as a very fast movie, blended together. Then as we watch the snake, every 1000th of a second we add more and more visual detail to those memories. so we start out with a very simple picture, using substitution of memories to fill in what we glimpse, and increasingly we fill in with observations rather than just substitutions from memory. When this happens we start predicting the future by the difference between the substitutions and the vision we experience in real time. It is better to think of the brain as a producer of continuous, iterative search results with a two second afterglow(a half-second half-life). So a memory stay’s ‘on’ if it’s continuously activated and dim’s if it’s not. If we are lucky, we can create a model(space) from it, and so between shape and model and color and sound, and continuous excitement of the same we can imagine pretty ‘complete’ information about this thing. (I started working as a delivery runner for my dad at age 7. it was a small city. within a few years, i could draw a map of the city to scale by hand, and a rough outline of all the houses in it. Just from memory. By the time I was twelve or fourteen I could draw the interior wood frame of a house by looking at it from the outside and drew dozens of houses in perspective showing their interior frames. We are capable of creating complex models. Even today I can generally diagnose what’s wrong with a car from just the sounds I hear. The point being that the map and the diagnosis are ‘accurate enough’ to act upon. Which is the author’s underlying argument.) (yet I cannot often read facial expressions which leads to the nest point: sensory differences) A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: SENSORY DIFFERENCES So some of us have highly attuned auditory (musical) senses. Some of us have perfect pitch and many of us do not. Some of us see different color densities and certainly the genders do. Some of us are more sensitive to vibrations. Some of us to ‘level’ (i can judge the level of a building and it bothers me terribly if it’s off.) Some of us cannot notice or do not notice at all. A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: VALUE JUDGEMENTS We know men, younger men, and females value differently. We know some cultures percieve similarities differently. THE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR, AND ADVOCACY So while any single human possesses only so many cognitive puzzle pieces about any topic, a band, a tribe, a nation, and a civilization possess a phenomenal amount of information about reality. By communicating and testing each other’s communications. By cooperating (or not), and by exchanging (or not), or by investing (or not), or by boycotting (or not), or by fighing (or not) we transfer information between individuals, groups, and super-groups. The evidence is that over time our actions increasingly corresponde with reality – as long as we use (a) scientific truth (b) rule of law, (c) markets, (d) many small competing polities that produce commons. If we do not, use a-d, then we will at some point stagnate if not regress. If we do use a-d, then we will continue to advance. Ergo, the west evolves faster than the rest. SUBSET AND SUBSTITUTION AND VALUE IS DIFFERENT FROM FALSE So we don’t have an ‘erroneous’ understanding of reality. we have a limited understanding of reality. And together we gain increasingly accurate understanding of reality. So much so that we have near total dominion over everything but each other. WHY WE NEED SCIENCE AND TESTIMONIALISM In my work I am trying to correct not only pseudoscientific statements by rather silly scientists, but to counter 150 years of pseudoscience of egalitarianism brought about by the cosmopolitan enlightemnent (counter-enlightenment) by Boaz, Freud, Marx, Adorno,Cantor, Rothbard, Strauss, and hundreds of others who have sought to replace utopian christian mysticism with utopian egalitarian pseudoscience. We have incrementally suppressed all forms of crime through expansion of the common natural law. And I am attempting (i think successfully) to demonstrate how we can outlaw pseudoscience by demanding the same due diligence in public speech in the market for information that we do in the production of goods and services for the market for consumption of goods and services. We used to teach grammar, logic, and rhetoric. If we taught grammar, logic, rhetoric and testimony (how to warranty against falsehood), basic accounting, and micro-economics, rather than social-pseudoscience we would have as great a revolution in human achievement as we had under the development of empiricism. THE OBSERVER EFFECT (WIKI) Now, the good professor does not understand the Observer Effect. It’s not that the universe cares if we’re watching. It’s that we only seem to be able to inspect via the electromagnetic spectrum in one way or another (at present) and anything we do to make an observation (take a measurement) changes the state of the thing we measure. That’s all it means. But it seems that we cannot kill this falsehood any more than we can kill some conspiracy theories. Here is wikipedia: —“In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics and can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques. In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that causes the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process. According to standard quantum mechanics, however, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic[3] measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process.[4] The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.” Historically, the observer effect has also been confused with the uncertainty principle.”— Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
–“Brian Gant: I’ve had this internal argument for years. Which is why certain folks we know who argue economic metaphysics is the only way of creating a predictive reality are batshit crazy 😉“––“Michael DeMond: LOL you mean folks like Curt Doolittle???? I would LOVE to hear his thoughts on this! 😀“–http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb Hi Michael. Be careful when you call the devil, because sometimes he comes. lol 😉 DR HOFFMAN 1) OVERSTATES THE CASE, 2) CONFUSES THE OBSERVER EFFECT AND THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE AND 3) MAKES A PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT – IN OTHER WORDS, HE’S TALKING MOSTLY NONSENSE I call this, ‘new age mysticism’. —“Hoffman: We’ve been shaped to have perceptions that keep us alive, so we have to take them seriously. If I see something that I think of as a snake, I don’t pick it up. If I see a train, I don’t step in front of it. I’ve evolved these symbols to keep me alive, so I have to take them seriously. But it’s a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also have to take it literally. Gefter: If snakes aren’t snakes and trains aren’t trains, what are they? Hoffman: Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal ones. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations.”— A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: COST 1 – the value of memory is in outwitting the current course of events by acting in response to stimuli (information). 2 – to act in response to stimuli we must process information quickly enough to act to change the course of events. information processing takes time, and more information takes more time and less information takes less time – if we remember or sense too much information (more than we can process in sufficient time to act – usually from 100ms to 2kms) then it inhibits our actions.) Information processing takes time, and more information takes more time and less information takes less time – if we remember or sense too much information (more than we can process in sufficient time to act – usually from 100ms to 2kms) then it inhibits our actions.) 3 – information processing is very expensive – our human brains are very, very, very expensive organs. The more expensive the information processing the more calories required to support information processing. (Humans have sacrificed strength for the ability to run long distances – longer than any other land creature – and to think.) 4 – we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, what we need to in order to act. We don’t see hear, smell, taste, feel what we do not need to in order to act – because it would be an unnecessary cost. 5 – Information carried by Electromagnetic Radiation (light) is cheap vs action-distance and energy required. But increases cost of processing. Same is true for hearing and smell (dogs), or vibration (spiders). Of these, light requires the least energy output by the entity that can be acted upon, over the longest actionable distance. Vibration the opposite. opponents and prey can control vibration and sound. sometimes they can control smell. and sometimes they can hide. They can only control light by hiding or darkness. It is hard to control all of them. 7 – we remember only the minimum information necessary to identify opportunities to act – because more so would be an unnecessary cost, or take unnecessary time. ANALOGY:PUZZLES Now, imagine you have a series of black and white photos of snakes.Put each of them (a lot of them) on panes of glass. Cut the images (not the glass) into small puzzle pieces. remove all the pieces that are not necessary to define the outline of the snake. We evolved to fear in snakes is their means of movement even more so than the shape. so now imagine that instead of photos we have 1 second animated gifs and we make all the pixels transparent that aren’t necessary to create a vague shape of this snake. Next, our eyes have lots of sensors in the very center of our focus and many fewer as we radiate outward. So take a picture of two ‘marker’ features like the pattern on the back, and the head and eyes. Now that’s just the visual component. This will also store a sort of color map of the snake. (There is a huge similarity to how we compress video and how the brain stores information, except there is more information in the video than our memories ) So when we see a snake we find those very small sets of puzzle pieces in many different memories, and we sort of experience them as a very fast movie, blended together. Then as we watch the snake, every 1000th of a second we add more and more visual detail to those memories. so we start out with a very simple picture, using substitution of memories to fill in what we glimpse, and increasingly we fill in with observations rather than just substitutions from memory. When this happens we start predicting the future by the difference between the substitutions and the vision we experience in real time. It is better to think of the brain as a producer of continuous, iterative search results with a two second afterglow(a half-second half-life). So a memory stay’s ‘on’ if it’s continuously activated and dim’s if it’s not. If we are lucky, we can create a model(space) from it, and so between shape and model and color and sound, and continuous excitement of the same we can imagine pretty ‘complete’ information about this thing. (I started working as a delivery runner for my dad at age 7. it was a small city. within a few years, i could draw a map of the city to scale by hand, and a rough outline of all the houses in it. Just from memory. By the time I was twelve or fourteen I could draw the interior wood frame of a house by looking at it from the outside and drew dozens of houses in perspective showing their interior frames. We are capable of creating complex models. Even today I can generally diagnose what’s wrong with a car from just the sounds I hear. The point being that the map and the diagnosis are ‘accurate enough’ to act upon. Which is the author’s underlying argument.) (yet I cannot often read facial expressions which leads to the nest point: sensory differences) A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: SENSORY DIFFERENCES So some of us have highly attuned auditory (musical) senses. Some of us have perfect pitch and many of us do not. Some of us see different color densities and certainly the genders do. Some of us are more sensitive to vibrations. Some of us to ‘level’ (i can judge the level of a building and it bothers me terribly if it’s off.) Some of us cannot notice or do not notice at all. A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: VALUE JUDGEMENTS We know men, younger men, and females value differently. We know some cultures percieve similarities differently. THE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR, AND ADVOCACY So while any single human possesses only so many cognitive puzzle pieces about any topic, a band, a tribe, a nation, and a civilization possess a phenomenal amount of information about reality. By communicating and testing each other’s communications. By cooperating (or not), and by exchanging (or not), or by investing (or not), or by boycotting (or not), or by fighing (or not) we transfer information between individuals, groups, and super-groups. The evidence is that over time our actions increasingly corresponde with reality – as long as we use (a) scientific truth (b) rule of law, (c) markets, (d) many small competing polities that produce commons. If we do not, use a-d, then we will at some point stagnate if not regress. If we do use a-d, then we will continue to advance. Ergo, the west evolves faster than the rest. SUBSET AND SUBSTITUTION AND VALUE IS DIFFERENT FROM FALSE So we don’t have an ‘erroneous’ understanding of reality. we have a limited understanding of reality. And together we gain increasingly accurate understanding of reality. So much so that we have near total dominion over everything but each other. WHY WE NEED SCIENCE AND TESTIMONIALISM In my work I am trying to correct not only pseudoscientific statements by rather silly scientists, but to counter 150 years of pseudoscience of egalitarianism brought about by the cosmopolitan enlightemnent (counter-enlightenment) by Boaz, Freud, Marx, Adorno,Cantor, Rothbard, Strauss, and hundreds of others who have sought to replace utopian christian mysticism with utopian egalitarian pseudoscience. We have incrementally suppressed all forms of crime through expansion of the common natural law. And I am attempting (i think successfully) to demonstrate how we can outlaw pseudoscience by demanding the same due diligence in public speech in the market for information that we do in the production of goods and services for the market for consumption of goods and services. We used to teach grammar, logic, and rhetoric. If we taught grammar, logic, rhetoric and testimony (how to warranty against falsehood), basic accounting, and micro-economics, rather than social-pseudoscience we would have as great a revolution in human achievement as we had under the development of empiricism. THE OBSERVER EFFECT (WIKI) Now, the good professor does not understand the Observer Effect. It’s not that the universe cares if we’re watching. It’s that we only seem to be able to inspect via the electromagnetic spectrum in one way or another (at present) and anything we do to make an observation (take a measurement) changes the state of the thing we measure. That’s all it means. But it seems that we cannot kill this falsehood any more than we can kill some conspiracy theories. Here is wikipedia: —“In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics and can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques. In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that causes the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process. According to standard quantum mechanics, however, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic[3] measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process.[4] The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.” Historically, the observer effect has also been confused with the uncertainty principle.”— Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute