Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • 1) I suspect it’s just the physics of the neural economy: breadth neural searche

    1) I suspect it’s just the physics of the neural economy: breadth neural searches are cheaper and faster with lower returns on recursion than depth searches with higher recursion. In general, minor variations in neural organization should produce large variations in cognition.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 13:32:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996382699932839937

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996361839477968896

    IN REPLY TO:

    @DegenRolf

    The brains of more intelligent individuals are interconnected to a lesser extent, having less dendrites at command in the cerebral cortex. https://t.co/h5eBggGVpt https://t.co/jmuvEm9TiA

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996361839477968896

  • —“Curt, on Ireland’s Referendum. Your Position on Abortion?”—

    Well, you know, I would have said something very different before I worked on natural law, because my intuitions are pretty libertarian. But now that I have, I’m against abortion, pro birth control, pro enforced birth control, and pro sterilization. And I would rather see punishment of girls who get pregnant, and the boys that get them pregnant, than tolerate abortions – even if the data says that unwanted children produce extraordinarily bad externalities. Altruistic punishment of those who fail to suppress their impulses a good thing. Fear of failure to suppress your impulses is a good thing. Having been there myself I understand. I also understand that the option only subsidizes the problem And even though I hate the idea myself, like capital punishment some unpleasantries are what they are. Some things are not to be trifled with, and creating life is one of them. And decidable is decidable, and it’s when we lie to ourselves and each other, that we have difficulty solving problems that are in fact, always decidable. Abortion is decidable. The decision is ‘no’.

  • —“Curt, on Ireland’s Referendum. Your Position on Abortion?”—

    Well, you know, I would have said something very different before I worked on natural law, because my intuitions are pretty libertarian. But now that I have, I’m against abortion, pro birth control, pro enforced birth control, and pro sterilization. And I would rather see punishment of girls who get pregnant, and the boys that get them pregnant, than tolerate abortions – even if the data says that unwanted children produce extraordinarily bad externalities. Altruistic punishment of those who fail to suppress their impulses a good thing. Fear of failure to suppress your impulses is a good thing. Having been there myself I understand. I also understand that the option only subsidizes the problem And even though I hate the idea myself, like capital punishment some unpleasantries are what they are. Some things are not to be trifled with, and creating life is one of them. And decidable is decidable, and it’s when we lie to ourselves and each other, that we have difficulty solving problems that are in fact, always decidable. Abortion is decidable. The decision is ‘no’.

  • Who Would Be Interesting to Debate?

    —“Who out there is not only equipped but coming from an angle which you yourself would find most rewarding to debate?”— Nicholas Arthur Catton  Well, conversationally, I’d like to talk with Zizek just because the two of us are similar in some ways but at opposite ends of the structural spectrum. I’d like to talk to debate Peterson on truth, and discuss abrahamism and platonism versus his attempt to restore stoicism. I’d like to talk with Weinstein about mathematics of measuring capital in economics, and the consequences. (he has a deep feminine streak) I’d like to debate Harris on buddhism’s vs stoicism and the consequences for society. Of course I’d like to debate Hoppe on justificationism vs falsification by each dimension including the market. But I think he would doulbe down and fail, so I think it’s something I would need to debate with a team of philosophers rather than just one individual. I’d like to debate Epstein over the restoration of the constitution. I’d like to see if I could convince Haidt that moral biases are reducible to changes in state of assets that correspond to reproductive strategies. I’ld like to debate Fukuyama on monopoly bureaucracy vs a market of competing institutions under natural law monarchy (nomocracy). ANd I’d like to address the ant vs wolf differences in our cultures. I”d like to debate Duchesne over whether the church is of european or Syrian (middle eastern) origins, and the degree of damage the church did during the abrahamic dark age – because I think he is less of an economist and I think both of us might come away better understanding. I’d like to debate Mallory and Armstrong on the european-iranian-indian divide, and whether it was in fact, a dispersal or a driving-out. I mean… I suppose I could go on all day. but that’s a list of the people whose thinking I think of so to speak….

  • Who Would Be Interesting to Debate?

    —“Who out there is not only equipped but coming from an angle which you yourself would find most rewarding to debate?”— Nicholas Arthur Catton  Well, conversationally, I’d like to talk with Zizek just because the two of us are similar in some ways but at opposite ends of the structural spectrum. I’d like to talk to debate Peterson on truth, and discuss abrahamism and platonism versus his attempt to restore stoicism. I’d like to talk with Weinstein about mathematics of measuring capital in economics, and the consequences. (he has a deep feminine streak) I’d like to debate Harris on buddhism’s vs stoicism and the consequences for society. Of course I’d like to debate Hoppe on justificationism vs falsification by each dimension including the market. But I think he would doulbe down and fail, so I think it’s something I would need to debate with a team of philosophers rather than just one individual. I’d like to debate Epstein over the restoration of the constitution. I’d like to see if I could convince Haidt that moral biases are reducible to changes in state of assets that correspond to reproductive strategies. I’ld like to debate Fukuyama on monopoly bureaucracy vs a market of competing institutions under natural law monarchy (nomocracy). ANd I’d like to address the ant vs wolf differences in our cultures. I”d like to debate Duchesne over whether the church is of european or Syrian (middle eastern) origins, and the degree of damage the church did during the abrahamic dark age – because I think he is less of an economist and I think both of us might come away better understanding. I’d like to debate Mallory and Armstrong on the european-iranian-indian divide, and whether it was in fact, a dispersal or a driving-out. I mean… I suppose I could go on all day. but that’s a list of the people whose thinking I think of so to speak….

  • WHO WOULD BE INTERESTING TO DEBATE? —“Who out there is not only equipped but c

    WHO WOULD BE INTERESTING TO DEBATE?

    —“Who out there is not only equipped but coming from an angle which you yourself would find most rewarding to debate?”— Nicholas Arthur Catton

    Well, conversationally, I’d like to talk with Zizek just because the two of us are similar in some ways but at opposite ends of the structural spectrum.

    I’d like to talk to debate Peterson on truth, and discuss abrahamism and platonism versus his attempt to restore stoicism.

    I’d like to talk with Weinstein about mathematics of measuring capital in economics, and the consequences. (he has a deep feminine streak)

    I’d like to debate harris on buddhism’s vs stoicism and the consequences for society.

    Of course I’d like to debate Hoppe on justificationism vs falsification by each dimension including the market. But I think he would doulbe down and fail, so I think it’s something I would need to debate with a team of philosophers rather than just one individual.

    I’d like to debate Epstein over the restoration of the constitution.

    I’d like to see if I could convince Haidt that moral biases are reducible to changes in state of assets that correspond to reproductive strategies.

    I’ld like to debate Fukuyama on monopoly bureaucracy vs a market of competing institutions under natural law monarchy (nomocracy). ANd I’d like to address the ant vs wolf differences in our cultures.

    I”d like to debate Duchesne over whether the church is of european or Syrian (middle eastern) origins, and the degree of damage the church did during the abrahamic dark age – because I think he is less of an economist and I think both of us might come away better understanding.

    I’d like to debate Mallory and Armstrong on the european-iranian-indian divide, and whether it was in fact, a dispersal or a driving-out.

    I mean… I suppose I could go on all day. but that’s a list of the people whose thinking I think of so to speak….

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 07:03:00 UTC

  • “CURT, ON IRELAND’S REFERENDUM. YOUR POSITION ON ABORTION?”— Well, you know, I

    —“CURT, ON IRELAND’S REFERENDUM. YOUR POSITION ON ABORTION?”—

    Well, you know, I would have said something very different before I worked on natural law, because my intuitions are pretty libertarian. But now that I have, I’m against abortion, pro birth control, pro enforced birth control, and pro sterilization. And I would rather see punishment of girls who get pregnant, and the boys that get them pregnant, than tolerate abortions – even if the data says that unwanted children produce extraordinarily bad externalities. Altruistic punishment of those who fail to suppress their impulses a good thing. Fear of failure to suppress your impulses is a good thing. Having been there myself I understand. I also understand that the option only subsidizes the problem And even though I hate the idea myself, like capital punishment some unpleasantries are what they are. Some things are not to be trifled with, and creating life is one of them. And decidable is decidable, and it’s when we lie to ourselves and each other, that we have difficulty solving problems that are in fact, always decidable. Abortion is decidable. The decision is ‘no’.

    .

    (I didn’t want to publish this, but … it’s my job, so I did.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 22:04:00 UTC

  • Actually I pulled that out as a separate text because it’s like 200 pages. So ye

    Actually I pulled that out as a separate text because it’s like 200 pages. So yes, i have the separate text in the queue as well.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 18:21:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996093164187471873

    Reply addressees: @GaryJEllisonJr

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996089869419122688

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996089869419122688

  • That’s what I’m doing. I just work through ideas in public like FB is my classro

    That’s what I’m doing. I just work through ideas in public like FB is my classroom rather than talking to the wall and myself. It’s fun.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 18:03:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996088645852516352

    Reply addressees: @GaryJEllisonJr

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996043407716995072

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996043407716995072

  • READING HABITS —“What’s your reading schedule look like? Do you take a structu

    READING HABITS

    —“What’s your reading schedule look like? Do you take a structured approach or just wander about at random? Are you still reading a lot these days?”– A Friend

    Um… I go through all the economics, hbd, archeological, blogs every day, and if a paper or article looks interesting, or if a book is recommended I add it to my list.

    I write when i’m fresh. I scan blogs when i’m no longer fresh, and read the papers right away, and then read the books when I’m tired.

    When I read the books I follow Adler’s advice: I scan the table of contents, scan a few pages, look for the central argument, read that, and rarely do I read all the ‘filler’ around it. Most books can be summarized in a paper, and the best books start out as papers.

    If I don’t understand something or if I disagree with something I read more until I can tell if the author is making an error or not. (Which is far easier than you’d think.)

    If I want to read something and thoroughly understand it I will import it somehow – usually into pdf, and have my machine read it to me while I’m doing something else. I rarely do one thing at a time. And authors typically present information too slowly. (hence why I am a fan of gary stanley becker.)

    That said I read certain authors no matter what they write. But I write far more than I read. Why? I read a great deal before I started writing. And the rate of change is something that I can keep up with pretty easily (outside of materials science… and in particular chemistry, which has always offended my autism). I don’t like getting my hands dirty, like finger painting, or gardening, and my memories of chemistry and biology are nothing bug icky stuff that smells bad. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 13:14:00 UTC