(FB 1553015709 Timestamp) —“Calculating for reciprocity is superior to intuiting an ideal.”—Brandon Hayes That is one of those sentences you have to contemplate to fully appreciate. Well done.
Form: Quote Commentary
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553009066 Timestamp) BETTER THAN I COULD HAVE SAID IT by Brandon Hayes I’m under the impression and understand the beauty of P to be this: by removing personal subjectivity (asymmetric preference) from human interaction [by subjecting it to P law; replacing it with calculation] Emotions and meaning are properly solved for (via the best plausible outcome). This is because P solves for the optimal interaction (cooperation; reciprocity). P says (calculates, proves) what’s false (wrong); thus to be avoided OR bad (immoral unethical) to be punished (or left undone). By, removing, punishing and limiting the bad. ALL possibilities to GOOD are opened [and taken more often as we close doors to the “bad”]. It leaves preference and decisions about pursuits to HUMANS (hence P can’t be done by AI and is resistant to take-over). Only humans can make the calculations P suggests. People seem to think P must say more than it does about the way things are or ought to be; but the brilliance of P is its parsimony. — CURTD — Correct. And this is the problem i face, the law faces, and science faces. We say only that which is false. It is up to those others to decide, from that options remain, what is GOOD and not FALSE. So for those with great psychological, emotional, intellectual, and material, agency for whom adaptation to any given ‘good’ is relatively easy does little for the vast majority for whom movement with a herd of similar interests is their only available means of survival. If I must PROPOSE a religious structure (I will do so) as a rough outline for others to create upon, then I will. But even doing that is merely ADVICE. That is different from math (measurement) science (falsification), and law (truth). The narrative will and must forever be a means of unifying behind an hypothesis of the good.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553015342 Timestamp) —“Propertarianism. It’s not removing subjectivity but revealing it.”—Moritz Bierling
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553008419 Timestamp) —“Patience implies a delay. Most ‘intellectuals’ are not waiting, they are hiding.”— Vengefül Bobmoran
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553009066 Timestamp) BETTER THAN I COULD HAVE SAID IT by Brandon Hayes I’m under the impression and understand the beauty of P to be this: by removing personal subjectivity (asymmetric preference) from human interaction [by subjecting it to P law; replacing it with calculation] Emotions and meaning are properly solved for (via the best plausible outcome). This is because P solves for the optimal interaction (cooperation; reciprocity). P says (calculates, proves) what’s false (wrong); thus to be avoided OR bad (immoral unethical) to be punished (or left undone). By, removing, punishing and limiting the bad. ALL possibilities to GOOD are opened [and taken more often as we close doors to the “bad”]. It leaves preference and decisions about pursuits to HUMANS (hence P can’t be done by AI and is resistant to take-over). Only humans can make the calculations P suggests. People seem to think P must say more than it does about the way things are or ought to be; but the brilliance of P is its parsimony. — CURTD — Correct. And this is the problem i face, the law faces, and science faces. We say only that which is false. It is up to those others to decide, from that options remain, what is GOOD and not FALSE. So for those with great psychological, emotional, intellectual, and material, agency for whom adaptation to any given ‘good’ is relatively easy does little for the vast majority for whom movement with a herd of similar interests is their only available means of survival. If I must PROPOSE a religious structure (I will do so) as a rough outline for others to create upon, then I will. But even doing that is merely ADVICE. That is different from math (measurement) science (falsification), and law (truth). The narrative will and must forever be a means of unifying behind an hypothesis of the good.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553004844 Timestamp) —“For the intellectual, to endure politically correct speech is merely to patiently suffer the etiquette of degenerates and fools.”— Chris Tangemann
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553032075 Timestamp) —“You come up with these pronouncements (and label them ânatural lawâ) as if they were objective laws of the universe requiring no further debate. Seriously, death by fire?”—Dennis Spain Thats because you haven’t walked thru one of my arguments and tried to refute it. Everyone tries to make general criticisms. But very few people throw CASES at me. And cases TEST theories. So go ahead and try.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553023005 Timestamp) by Moritz Bierling First massive gain in dealing with your environment comes from making any distinction at all, hence the incredible power of binaries (positive = ideal, negative = inverted ideal). After that, increasing precision becomes important, especially when scale and iteration enter the picture. Undecidable —> Ideals (Binaries) —> Reals (Spectra) —CURTD— See Relation to: … Virtue Ethics > Imitation … … Rule Ethics > General Rules … … … Outcome Ethics > Knowledge
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553022779 Timestamp) PILL CLARITY. 😉 by Greg Hamilton Blue (BP) is narrative, … Red(RP) is reality, … … Black(BP) is nihilism, … … … White(WP) is hope. Hope for the future: WP. Being realistic about the situation: RP. If you’re pointing out the reality: RP Selling nihilism: BP Acknowledging the system will fail is just RP.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553023005 Timestamp) by Moritz Bierling First massive gain in dealing with your environment comes from making any distinction at all, hence the incredible power of binaries (positive = ideal, negative = inverted ideal). After that, increasing precision becomes important, especially when scale and iteration enter the picture. Undecidable —> Ideals (Binaries) —> Reals (Spectra) —CURTD— See Relation to: … Virtue Ethics > Imitation … … Rule Ethics > General Rules … … … Outcome Ethics > Knowledge