Curt Doolittle

Form: Short Note

  • OK, CALI. LETS CLARIFY – NOT GONNA HAPPEN. 1) Cut the water. 2) Close the federa

    OK, CALI. LETS CLARIFY – NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

    1) Cut the water.

    2) Close the federal reserve branches in SF and LA and transfer them to Utah’s branch.

    3) Close the land exits from California to the USA.

    4) Close the ports – air and sea.

    Watch a reclaimed desert, convert back to desert.

    SO:

    1) please seceded, we want you to. you’re a cancer for this country.

    2) take your portion of the national debt that you were so heavily responsible for creating.

    3) create a new currency and issue it in the hopes that someone in the world will take it.

    4) build dozens of desalination plants with the money you won’t have.

    5) lose all the revenue that is created by CA’s function as a port of entry.

    6) lose all trade revenue with the rest of the country.

    7) beg to be part of china since they’re the only people who can finance your survival.

    8) learn chinese, and how to live under authoritarian rule.

    9) note that the rest of us will lock the doors, throw away the key, and leave you to die.

    You know. You can go nicely, or you can go ‘dead’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-28 18:33:00 UTC

  • CALIFORNIA. uh huh. Not gonna make the payments to the feds? how about we close

    CALIFORNIA.

    uh huh. Not gonna make the payments to the feds?

    how about we close the fed branch in SF and it’s sub-branch in LA, and move the clearing to the Utah Branch?

    How long will California exist? Days? Two weeks?

    We WANT you to secede.

    But you gotta secede if you want out.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-28 17:45:00 UTC

  • HOMO SAPIENS ARE PLENTIFUL BUT HUMANS ARE RARE Instead, if we abandon the falseh

    HOMO SAPIENS ARE PLENTIFUL BUT HUMANS ARE RARE

    Instead, if we abandon the falsehoods of the enlightenment, we find that we can dramatically reduce our conflicts, and dramatically reduce our frustration with much of mankind. At every 15 points of IQ we begin, and at every 30 points complete, speciation. And as far as I can tell, below 106, where man loses the ability to create and repair tools, and speak in his ideas in rational terms, we are merely talking about decreasingly domesticated homo sapiens, not ‘humans’ in the sense that we mean it: aware, conscious and self determinant independent of impulse. man cooperates using hierarchy because he must. while homo sapiens are plentiful, humans are all too rare.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-28 10:03:00 UTC

  • FWIW Russia’s Shoygu is a career engineer and politician. He just looks ferociou

    FWIW Russia’s Shoygu is a career engineer and politician. He just looks ferocious. He was given the position for political reasons. Not because he has military experience. He’s our equivalent of the head of the Department of Emergency Services (an engineering and logistics job).

    China’s Chang (patronym’s are stated first in China) is a career officer, but a career administrative officer, and not a warrior. He is in his position because china is in a period of expansion and he was previously in charge of acquisition and development of equipment.

    Iran’s Dehghan is a career air force officer with decades of military and intelligence experience. While not a ground-force commander he is battle tested, and holds his position out of demonstrated merit.

    There is no comparison to Mattis in this world. He is an example of the prussian continental and us marine american traditions. These are the two most stoic and empircal military traditions on earth. Unfortunately postwar moralism has polluted most of europe. We’d have to go back to germans of the world wars, or the germanic americans (patton, eisenhower, macarthur etc).

    This is why the interference of Clinton in the military must never be repeated. We need to replicate the marine culture in the army, separate the warriors from the technicians, give the warriors amazing retirement or injury benefits, and remove them from the technicians. We have to restore ‘arianism’ (roman/prussian stoicism) to our martial class and reposition the monarchy as the ward of that tradition stated clearly and without reservation in a constitution.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-28 09:34:00 UTC

  • ( Only a few people will understand this but I”m going to do the best I can in a

    ( Only a few people will understand this but I”m going to do the best I can in a small number of words ’cause I”m pretty busy writing code at the moment.)

    —“Münchhausen trilemma”—

    I think it’s nonsense. Since it is justificationary it’s nonsense. In modern terms we simply say that no set of operations can be used to define itself.

    But, like the liars paradox, this is a false dilemma. It is impossible to construct a liars paradox using complete sentences. (really)

    It is impossible to construct a question of the trilemma using complete sentences. It is also impossible to ask a question consisting of complete information other than stating a tautology.

    First, a proof consists of a test of internal consistency, not informational completeness, nor external correspondence. To construct a proof is not to demonstrate a truth. The truth lies in the promise that one’s proof is internally consistent. (really)

    Decidability is provided by willingness to act with partial information.

    Ergo his very question is a catastrophic error of reasoning by confusing closed axiomatic systems uttered verbally (an analogy) and therefore falsely, with open theoretic systems uttered as truthfully as possible given the universal sparsely distributed information that people must comprehend and act with.

    I don’t call these people liars and charlatans as much as idiots. But then, I am lucky to live in an era where we have enough experience with computability that we now understand how stupid all this victorian babble really is.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 16:04:00 UTC

  • LIBRARY AS THE REMAINING UNIVERSAL SACRED COMMONS? I understand now. A library i

    LIBRARY AS THE REMAINING UNIVERSAL SACRED COMMONS?

    I understand now. A library is the last sacred place in the commons. That is why we fund them so generously. Because, when judged by their content, they are nothing more than expensive book clubs for the underemployed.

    This isn’t so much a criticism of the over-investment in libraries nationwide. But that man demonstrates a consistent willingness over millennia to invest in sacred commons: a place where we may not speak, may not advocate, may not engage in commerce, may not compete. but merely rest in peace.

    Why is it then that we cannot simply return to the era when parks were sacred places? Surely we can have some parks sacred and some parks for play?

    I used to go to the (rather luxurious 19th century) graveyard. Graveyards still are a bit sacred. So how many sacred places do we have? is that why we hide in our homes? No sacred places in the commons? They have all been commercialized?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 15:48:00 UTC

  • “I need to learn how you think.”— I don’t feel when I think. I think with time

    —“I need to learn how you think.”—

    I don’t feel when I think. I think with time, property, costs, and reserve sympathetic judgement until the end. It’s just like math in that regard.

    Whenever I hear ‘feel good’ in an argument, I basically know someone is lying/making an err. So I solve the logic of incentives from A to B on that basis.

    When there are no ‘feelings’ involved I know I have found the waypoints. Then I stand back and ask myself how I feel about it. Most people simply cannot develop the mental discipline to think inversely like that.

    People are acquisition machines. Our feelings evolved encourage us to acquire. They evolved to reward us for thoughts of acquisition, acts of acquisition, acquisitions, and they evolved to punish us for losses and thoughts of losses. We merely make excuses along the way, because we need to negotiate with our ‘moral selves’ and negotiate with others.

    And that is perhaps the best way to look at “The Systems”

    System 0 – “acquire evaluation” (brainstem evaluation)

    System 1 – “moral evaluation”

    System 2 – “search” (memory of experiences)

    System 3 – “negotiation” (what we call reason)

    We just happen to be able to use our negotiation to reason – with enough practice to circumvent our moral evaluation.

    reasoning evolved from negotiation I assume.

    This explains (probably) the difference from male and female agency.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 14:41:00 UTC

  • (either my patience, eyesight, fingers, keyboard, or autocorrect is failing me.

    (either my patience, eyesight, fingers, keyboard, or autocorrect is failing me. lol. Honestly. I can spell just fine.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 14:08:00 UTC

  • #Conservative #Libertarian #NRx #Trump

    #Conservative #Libertarian #NRx #Trump https://t.co/vmMHANkTVZ

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 13:00:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/824965419895242754

  • We talk to much about SENTIENCE (awareness), and CONSCIOUSNESS (self awareness)

    We talk to much about SENTIENCE (awareness), and CONSCIOUSNESS (self awareness) and not enough about AGENCY (self determination).

    It’s not clear where the line of demarcation is between human an beast. And it appears that the answer is uncomfortable. we can cooperate with those who possess consciousness. But lacking agency are they still fully human?

    (very important)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 09:43:00 UTC