Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • Eugenics is a good thing

    Eugenics is a good thing.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 21:27:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058108361206624259

    Reply addressees: @DonnaSteffy @kelly2277

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057747662726868992

    IN REPLY TO:

    @DonnaSteffy

    @kelly2277 Ok. I will say this again..cause Peter Thiel is screwing around with gene companies and vaccines…the dude is a eugenicist.;.his connections to robert mercer and bannon and ron paul run deep… the dude is not a fake eugenicist..he is a real one… he is NSA, Palantir, etc..etc

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057747662726868992

  • Is eugenics a bad thing? I am pretty sure the most important factor that determi

    Is eugenics a bad thing? I am pretty sure the most important factor that determines quality of life is the scale of the underclasses in relation to those above 115. Eugenics in china (one child) has bee successful. Eugenics (no immigration) in japan and Korea has been successful

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 21:26:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058108040262639624

    Reply addressees: @jeffhauser

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058104007758094345

    IN REPLY TO:

    @jeffhauser

    Peter Thiel is connected to eugenics by his actions: https://t.co/f0EKVuJcFJ

    Thiel destroyed press outlets he didn’t like because he could.

    Thiel’s Palantir is super dangerous.

    Thiel should not be a member in good standing of civil society. https://t.co/YkjOBJvIbl

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058104007758094345

  • I dunno. I’m hetero and I’ve been at and thrown upscale parties with strippers a

    I dunno. I’m hetero and I’ve been at and thrown upscale parties with strippers as waitresses. Not that anyone takes advantage of the offerings so to speak. But it certainly forces everyone to leave pretentiousness at the door. (and gets a lot of laughs)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 21:24:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058107556588109824

    Reply addressees: @jackhutton @DylanByers

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058101761414586368

    IN REPLY TO:

    @jackhutton

    @DylanByers Peter Thiel famously hosted parties in San Francisco that featured male waiters naked from the waist down. That’s Peter Thiel’s brand of class and center right values. He’s a real gem of a guy. Right.. his ‘values’ matter —right ? Sheesh.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058101761414586368

  • Metaphysics: We Sense the World Fine.

    METAPHYSICS: WE SENSE THE WORLD FINE. WE FILL IN THE BLANKS LESS SO

    —“Curt, how do you deal with the “we can’t trust our senses so we have no idea what reality consists of” argument? I.e. how can we determine if sensory information is false?”—

    [T]here is no evidence that we can’t trust our senses at human scale. So we perceive the world as it exists but at the scale and velocity of our perception. We have to defend against our cognitive biases that evolved at human scale . Or more simply, we SENSE the world just fine. We often PERCEIVE the world with error. We improve our perception with more information. we improve it further with falsification (tests of our cognitive biases). And we use instrumentation to EXTEND those perceptions. So it’s not true that we sense the world incorrectly. We appear to sense it (at human scale) quite accurately, and we tend to perceive it (at human scale) fairly accurately. But we ‘fill in the blanks’ with lots of error. So we have to make sure we aren’t filling in the blanks with error.

  • Metaphysics: We Sense the World Fine.

    METAPHYSICS: WE SENSE THE WORLD FINE. WE FILL IN THE BLANKS LESS SO

    —“Curt, how do you deal with the “we can’t trust our senses so we have no idea what reality consists of” argument? I.e. how can we determine if sensory information is false?”—

    [T]here is no evidence that we can’t trust our senses at human scale. So we perceive the world as it exists but at the scale and velocity of our perception. We have to defend against our cognitive biases that evolved at human scale . Or more simply, we SENSE the world just fine. We often PERCEIVE the world with error. We improve our perception with more information. we improve it further with falsification (tests of our cognitive biases). And we use instrumentation to EXTEND those perceptions. So it’s not true that we sense the world incorrectly. We appear to sense it (at human scale) quite accurately, and we tend to perceive it (at human scale) fairly accurately. But we ‘fill in the blanks’ with lots of error. So we have to make sure we aren’t filling in the blanks with error.

  • by Daniel Roland Anderson You know Curt, as I’ve been ruminating on this issue f

    by Daniel Roland Anderson

    You know Curt, as I’ve been ruminating on this issue for the last year (I can’t believe Ive been following you that long already!), and I find myself becoming frustrated and angry at how much different things could be with a Propertarian law school curriculum.

    And I’ll bet the results would be highly durable, because the longer you went, the more naturally things would flow.

    The civil court case load would drop drastically I think. And the vastly more predictable results would make it much less likely that parties would take their cases to court, because any Propertarian lawyer would be able to tell his client very quickly what is likely to happen.

    (CD: made my month … ’cause EXACTLY.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 17:33:00 UTC

  • That said, I don’t care very much about pomo, or pomo in pseudoscientific Chomsk

    —That said, I don’t care very much about pomo, or pomo in pseudoscientific Chomskian drag. I only care that I don’t have to defend against sophomoric criticism. 😉”— CD

    (re: Generative Anthropology)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 15:13:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058014089836929030

  • That said, I don’t care very much about pomo, or pomo in pseudoscientific Chomsk

    —That said, I don’t care very much about pomo, or pomo in pseudoscientific Chomskian drag. I only care that I don’t have to defend against sophomoric criticism. 😉”— CD

    (re: Generative Anthropology)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 11:12:00 UTC

  • CLOSE, BUT IT”S NOT JUST MATH, BUT ALGORITHMIC (OPERATIONAL). —“My sense is th

    CLOSE, BUT IT”S NOT JUST MATH, BUT ALGORITHMIC (OPERATIONAL).

    —“My sense is that Curt is more mathematically and scientifically oriented than he is literarily oriented. His syntax is almost algebraic at times.”— Joel Harvey

    That’s correct. I actually write in programmatic statements just like we write software. So

    |PARADIGMS(GRAMMARS)| Fictional (inflationary) > Literary(Meaningful) > testimonial(descriptive) > Algorithmic (programmatic, operations) > Scientific (correlative, statistical) > Logical (sets) > Mathematical (units).

    In fact, my writing looks almost identical to my pseudocode.

    I was taught in the era where we wrote pseudocode (outline in english) first to think through the logic, and in doing so write documentation, then to write the code itself (transactions).

    So yes, that is why you see what you see.

    And it is why I understood the possibility of algorithmic language of law….

    So there you go. Like I said. The reason I was able to complete Hayek’s program i is because I was born AFTER Turing and hayek was born BEFORE Turing.

    Now if I could just explain to all Austrians that austrian econ is the LAW of Economics rather than economics proper, they would understand both their discipline and what I have done with it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 08:22:00 UTC

  • METAPHYSICS: WE SENSE THE WORLD FINE. WE FILL IN THE BLANKS LESS SO —“Curt, ho

    METAPHYSICS: WE SENSE THE WORLD FINE. WE FILL IN THE BLANKS LESS SO

    —“Curt, how do you deal with the “we can’t trust our senses so we have no idea what reality consists of” argument? I.e. how can we determine if sensory information is false?”—

    There is no evidence that we can’t trust our senses at human scale.

    So we perceive the world as it exists but at the scale and velocity of our perception.

    We have to defend against our cognitive biases that evolved at human scale . Or more simply, we SENSE the world just fine. We often PERCEIVE the world with error.

    We improve our perception with more information. we improve it further with falsification (tests of our cognitive biases). And we use instrumentation to EXTEND those perceptions.

    So it’s not true that we sense the world incorrectly. We appear to sense it (at human scale) quite accurately, and we tend to perceive it (at human scale) fairly accurately.

    But we ‘fill in the blanks’ with lots of error.

    So we have to make sure we aren’t filling in the blanks with error.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 05:47:00 UTC