Form: Sketch

  • THE END OF MICROSOFT OFFICE? I can see what it looks like. I know what post-Exce

    THE END OF MICROSOFT OFFICE?

    I can see what it looks like.

    I know what post-Excel looks like

    I know what post-Word looks like

    I know what post-Outlook looks like

    I know what post-Powerpoint looks like

    I know what post-SharePoint looks like

    I know what post-Project looks like

    I know what technologies they’re built in.

    And that is all I’m sayin’. I thought of it a year and a half ago. But since then I can see the technologies on the web maturing. And I see the post desktop future on the web, and I see it without Microsoft.

    If I wanted to work for Google I could make it happen.

    (I kinda like writing philosophy though.)

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-02 07:19:00 UTC

  • Testimonialism (Completed Critical Rationalism)

    (second draft) (full cycle) (still needs third section) [W]e both perceive, and remember stimuli, and construct and remember relations from that stimuli, and construct and remember layers upon layers of those relations.

    The acts of planning, calculating, hypothesizing, searching, freely-associating, daydreaming, dreaming, and subconscious association attempt to imagine relations between the entire spectrum of memories we can store. Once some (useful?) association is made (found) we must criticize it: determine if it withstands the scrutiny of other relations. We determine if our imaginary relations survive (are truth candidates) by the act of testing those imagined relations to see if they fail or not – and therefore are worthy of our investment or not. We constantly compare the usefulness of the imagined relation with the cost of that imagined relation. The return on those relations determines how excited we ‘feel’ about those relations and the energy expenditure we can risk in pursuit of those relations. Returns can be both subjective and objective. Return can vary from mere satisfaction of curiosity, to personal gain, to a novel invention, to the total transformation of the world of man. As the complexity of relations increases, the means by which we test our imagined relations increases. While we are sometimes able to test our imagined relations by means of introspection, at some point we lack sufficient information to perform such tests, and must resort to both more structured methods of testing, and restore to gaining additional information to see if the imagined relation survives criticism. We perform this expansion of criticism until our estimation of the combination of risk,cost and reward favors conducting the final experiment of acting, rather than conducting either further criticism, or abandoning it as providing insufficient return. [T]he discipline we call philosophy and the discipline we call science consist of a set of methods (processes) which (a)philosophical science, (b)the social sciences, and (c)the physical sciences, use to launder existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences) from our testimony (speech). This laundering is achieved by a set of methodological criticisms addressing increasing levels of complexity of which philosophical science consists of the full set of criticisms, social science a subset of those criticisms, and physical science yet another a subset of those criticisms. Those criticisms consist of tests of: Identity, Internal Consistency, External Correspondence, Existential Possibility (Operationalism), Full Accounting (against selection bias), Parsimony (limits), and voluntary transfer (objective morality).”
  • Testimonialism (Completed Critical Rationalism)

    (second draft) (full cycle) (still needs third section) [W]e both perceive, and remember stimuli, and construct and remember relations from that stimuli, and construct and remember layers upon layers of those relations.

    The acts of planning, calculating, hypothesizing, searching, freely-associating, daydreaming, dreaming, and subconscious association attempt to imagine relations between the entire spectrum of memories we can store. Once some (useful?) association is made (found) we must criticize it: determine if it withstands the scrutiny of other relations. We determine if our imaginary relations survive (are truth candidates) by the act of testing those imagined relations to see if they fail or not – and therefore are worthy of our investment or not. We constantly compare the usefulness of the imagined relation with the cost of that imagined relation. The return on those relations determines how excited we ‘feel’ about those relations and the energy expenditure we can risk in pursuit of those relations. Returns can be both subjective and objective. Return can vary from mere satisfaction of curiosity, to personal gain, to a novel invention, to the total transformation of the world of man. As the complexity of relations increases, the means by which we test our imagined relations increases. While we are sometimes able to test our imagined relations by means of introspection, at some point we lack sufficient information to perform such tests, and must resort to both more structured methods of testing, and restore to gaining additional information to see if the imagined relation survives criticism. We perform this expansion of criticism until our estimation of the combination of risk,cost and reward favors conducting the final experiment of acting, rather than conducting either further criticism, or abandoning it as providing insufficient return. [T]he discipline we call philosophy and the discipline we call science consist of a set of methods (processes) which (a)philosophical science, (b)the social sciences, and (c)the physical sciences, use to launder existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences) from our testimony (speech). This laundering is achieved by a set of methodological criticisms addressing increasing levels of complexity of which philosophical science consists of the full set of criticisms, social science a subset of those criticisms, and physical science yet another a subset of those criticisms. Those criticisms consist of tests of: Identity, Internal Consistency, External Correspondence, Existential Possibility (Operationalism), Full Accounting (against selection bias), Parsimony (limits), and voluntary transfer (objective morality).”
  • SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY, 1-INTUITION, 2-REASON, 3-COOPERATION(REPRODUCTIVE D

    SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY, 1-INTUITION, 2-REASON, 3-COOPERATION(REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR)

    (profound) (worth repeating)

    Our logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.

    And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.

    Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent, and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.

    Reason (Kahneman’s System “2”) rides on the elephant of intuition (Kahneman’s System “1”), whose objects of consideration (System “0”) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-27 11:16:00 UTC

  • TESTIMONIALISM (COMPLETED CRITICAL RATIONALISM) (second draft) (full cycle) (sti

    TESTIMONIALISM (COMPLETED CRITICAL RATIONALISM)

    (second draft) (full cycle) (still needs third section)

    [W]e both perceive, and remember stimuli, and construct and remember relations from that stimuli, and construct and remember layers upon layers of those relations.

    The acts of planning, calculating, hypothesizing, searching, freely-associating, daydreaming, dreaming, and subconscious association attempt to imagine relations between the entire spectrum of memories we can store.

    Once some (useful?) association is made (found) we must criticize it: determine if it withstands the scrutiny of other relations.

    We determine if our imaginary relations survive (are truth candidates) by the act of testing those imagined relations to see if they fail or not – and therefore are worthy of our investment or not. We constantly compare the usefulness of the imagined relation with the cost of that imagined relation.

    The return on those relations determines how excited we ‘feel’ about those relations and the energy expenditure we can risk in pursuit of those relations.

    Returns can be both subjective and objective. Return can vary from mere satisfaction of curiosity, to personal gain, to a novel invention, to the total transformation of the world of man.

    As the complexity of relations increases, the means by which we test our imagined relations increases. While we are sometimes able to test our imagined relations by means of introspection, at some point we lack sufficient information to perform such tests, and must resort to both more structured methods of testing, and restore to gaining additional information to see if the imagined relation survives criticism.

    We perform this expansion of criticism until our estimation of the combination of risk,cost and reward favors conducting the final experiment of acting, rather than conducting either further criticism, or abandoning it as providing insufficient return.

    [T]he discipline we call philosophy and the discipline we call science consist of a set of methods (processes) which (a)philosophical science, (b)the social sciences, and (c)the physical sciences, use to launder existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences) from our testimony (speech).

    This laundering is achieved by a set of methodological criticisms addressing increasing levels of complexity of which philosophical science consists of the full set of criticisms, social science a subset of those criticisms, and physical science yet another a subset of those criticisms.

    Those criticisms consist of tests of: Identity, Internal Consistency, External Correspondence, Existential Possibility (Operationalism), Full Accounting (against selection bias), Parsimony (limits), and voluntary transfer (objective morality).”


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-27 06:56:00 UTC

  • Truth is a Very Expensive Norm – That’s Why No One Else Does It.

    (guaranteed to make people angry)(sketch)

    [H]IERARCHY OF TRUTHFUL CULTURES

    • -TRUTHFUL-
      GERMANIC EUROPE (non-ideological)
      ANGLO/AMERICAN (ideological optimism)
      INDIA (utopian idealism and justification)
    • -DECEPTIVE-
      JEWISH (circumstantial truth, dual ethics, framing and overloading: pseudoscience and pseudorationalism and informational asymmetry)
      CHINA (creative lying, obscurantism, and delaying, lying as buying time, avoiding conflict, accumulating strength.)
    • -DECEITFUL-
      RUSSIA (outright lying and cheating, non-contractual, lying as strength,)
      ISLAM/ARAB (denial of reality, deceit and aggression, lying as heroic.)

    I need a third dimension because India and SE Asia are hard to fit in a stack. And the more I work at it the more I admire how Hindus really just don’t connect to reality so much as lie.  It’s a totally different mentality.

    Source: Curt Doolittle – TRUTH IS A VERY EXPENSIVE NORM – THATS WHY NO ONE…

  • Truth is a Very Expensive Norm – That’s Why No One Else Does It.

    (guaranteed to make people angry)(sketch)

    [H]IERARCHY OF TRUTHFUL CULTURES

    • -TRUTHFUL-
      GERMANIC EUROPE (non-ideological)
      ANGLO/AMERICAN (ideological optimism)
      INDIA (utopian idealism and justification)
    • -DECEPTIVE-
      JEWISH (circumstantial truth, dual ethics, framing and overloading: pseudoscience and pseudorationalism and informational asymmetry)
      CHINA (creative lying, obscurantism, and delaying, lying as buying time, avoiding conflict, accumulating strength.)
    • -DECEITFUL-
      RUSSIA (outright lying and cheating, non-contractual, lying as strength,)
      ISLAM/ARAB (denial of reality, deceit and aggression, lying as heroic.)

    I need a third dimension because India and SE Asia are hard to fit in a stack. And the more I work at it the more I admire how Hindus really just don’t connect to reality so much as lie.  It’s a totally different mentality.

    Source: Curt Doolittle – TRUTH IS A VERY EXPENSIVE NORM – THATS WHY NO ONE…

  • TRUTH IS A VERY EXPENSIVE NORM – THATS WHY NO ONE ELSE DOES IT (guaranteed to ma

    TRUTH IS A VERY EXPENSIVE NORM – THATS WHY NO ONE ELSE DOES IT

    (guaranteed to make people angry)(sketch)

    —HIERARCHY—

    -TRUTHFUL-

    GERMANIC EUROPE (non-ideological)

    ANGLO/AMERICAN (ideological optimism)

    INDIA (utopian idealism and justification)

    -DECEPTIVE-

    JEWISH (circumstantial truth, dual ethics, framing and overloading: pseudoscience and pseudorationalism and informational asymmetry)

    CHINA (creative lying, obscurantism, and delaying, lying as buying time, avoiding conflict, accumulating strength.)

    -DECEITFUL-

    RUSSIA (outright lying and cheating, non-contractual, lying as strength,)

    ISLAM/ARAB (denial of reality, deceit and aggression, lying as heroic.)

    I need a third dimension because India and SE Asia are hard to fit in a stack.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 16:23:00 UTC

  • IS, MUST, SHOULD, CAN CAN: progressive (short) [consumption] [development of off

    IS, MUST, SHOULD, CAN

    CAN: progressive (short) [consumption] [development of offspring]

    SHOULD: libertarian (med) [production] [competition of production]

    MUST: conservative (long) [saving] [competition of the tribe]

    IS: science. (Timeless) [existence] [stock of knowledge]

    Is it that simple?


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-11 06:12:00 UTC

  • Marx Freud Cantor Boaz Lewontin Frankfurt Krugman, Stiglitz, De Long Mises, Roth

    Marx

    Freud

    Cantor

    Boaz

    Lewontin

    Frankfurt

    Krugman, Stiglitz, De Long

    Mises, Rothbard, Caplan

    Neocons:

    Fritz Lens 1930 Important Geneticist Evolution in the North by hard environment. Group competition wasn’t important. Selected for problem solving, not for aggression. Individualism is part of western uniqueness. (non aggression). High investment in children. Mating on Affection and personal attraction. Personal compatibility. Physical attractiveness. (not cousin marriage). Paternal Involvement. Uniquely tended toward monogamy. Sexual selection for blonde hair and blue eyes. (finer skin) more hair and eye color diversity: personal attraction. Less selected for fearing outsiders. Women have higher status in than in higher cultures.

    Western hunter gatherers (ice age >10K years ago). 7K yerars ago, farmers. more influential in the south. white but more dark skinned. indo europeans 4500 years ago as a military elite. Hunter gatherers are more egalitarian and select leadership. Northern europeans are pretty much that kind.

    Westerners travel the world to take care of others. But no one else does that. This empathy isn’t based upon kinship.

    His argument is genetic.

    (Loneliness)

    Individualism. associated with creativity. (hofstad’s index of patents).


    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-20 14:19:00 UTC