Curt Doolittle

Form: Sketch

  • TRANSNATIONAL INSURGENCIES Aristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain prope

    TRANSNATIONAL INSURGENCIES

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain property rights in exchange with others, to whom we grant them, under the agreement that we will defend each other’s rights, can or cannot know boundaries. I cannot understand how it can consider boundaries.

    It should be just as easy for a dedicated minority of insurgents to influence western property rights as it has been for a dedicated minority of insurgents in other cultures to attempt to alter their allocations of property and property rights – albeit, they don’t use that conceptualization or terminology.

    Knights of just as important today as they were in the past.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-13 00:05:00 UTC

  • Yes We Need A New Mathematical Revolution On The Scale Of Calculus : The Unit Of Commensurability In That Mathematics, Is Property, And Its Grammar Is Morality

    The mathematical order of big data? Property. 1) Humans (life) is acquisitive. 2) Humans seek to acquire a limited number of categories of things. from experiences (feelings), to information, affection, mates, associates, and all manner of material things. 3) Human seek to avoid losses – more so than to acquire. especially life, children, kin, and mates, but also anything else that they have acted to acquire. 4) Humans must cooperate, and seek to cooperate, in the pursuit of their acquisitions. 5) The problem of cooperation for humans(all life) outside of kin, is the prevention of, and suppression of, free riding (involuntary transfer) 6) Humans develop layers of complex rules (myths, traditions, habits, manners, ethics, morals, and common laws) to assist in cooperating in whatever structure of production they exist under. 6) All human language can be expressed in a grammar. Even the most complex and abstract ideas can be expressed in the grammar of acquisition and cooperation we commonly call ‘property’: “That in which we have acted to acquire, and the moral (legal) constraints under which we have done it. (I kind of wonder if this allows us to get past the comprehension limits of juries. At present, the trick is to have enough money, to afford to overwhelm the cognitive processing ability of the jury. It may be possible to analyze for example, a large trial, and produce a mathematical reduction of it, into terms that the jury can comprehend. The trial is still required, but we can reduce its complexity to an analogy to experience.) http://shar.es/QBhQ0

  • Yes We Need A New Mathematical Revolution On The Scale Of Calculus : The Unit Of Commensurability In That Mathematics, Is Property, And Its Grammar Is Morality

    The mathematical order of big data? Property. 1) Humans (life) is acquisitive. 2) Humans seek to acquire a limited number of categories of things. from experiences (feelings), to information, affection, mates, associates, and all manner of material things. 3) Human seek to avoid losses – more so than to acquire. especially life, children, kin, and mates, but also anything else that they have acted to acquire. 4) Humans must cooperate, and seek to cooperate, in the pursuit of their acquisitions. 5) The problem of cooperation for humans(all life) outside of kin, is the prevention of, and suppression of, free riding (involuntary transfer) 6) Humans develop layers of complex rules (myths, traditions, habits, manners, ethics, morals, and common laws) to assist in cooperating in whatever structure of production they exist under. 6) All human language can be expressed in a grammar. Even the most complex and abstract ideas can be expressed in the grammar of acquisition and cooperation we commonly call ‘property’: “That in which we have acted to acquire, and the moral (legal) constraints under which we have done it. (I kind of wonder if this allows us to get past the comprehension limits of juries. At present, the trick is to have enough money, to afford to overwhelm the cognitive processing ability of the jury. It may be possible to analyze for example, a large trial, and produce a mathematical reduction of it, into terms that the jury can comprehend. The trial is still required, but we can reduce its complexity to an analogy to experience.) http://shar.es/QBhQ0

  • SPHERES OF BEHAVIORAL ACCEPTABILITY (what we ignore and punish) In your imaginat

    SPHERES OF BEHAVIORAL ACCEPTABILITY

    (what we ignore and punish)

    In your imagination

    In your bathroom

    In your bedroom

    at your dining table

    In front of your mother

    In front of your neighborhood

    In front your city square.

    On national television

    In front of (your equivalent of) ‘the pope’

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-19 14:03:00 UTC

  • (Sketch) Solipsistic < ---- > Autistic (relation with the self) VS ( Empathic <-

    (Sketch)

    Solipsistic < —- > Autistic (relation with the self)

    VS

    (

    Empathic <——> Sociopathic (relation to others)

    AND

    Submissive <—-> Dominant

    )

    The desire for stimulation remains constant.

    The formation of higher brain areas exhibits variability.

    Brain structures

    Important research on personality traits and brain structures have been conducted, providing correlations between the Big Five personality traits and specific areas of the brain.

    Some research has been done to look into the structures of the brain and their connections to personality traits of the FFM. Two main studies were done by Sato et al. (2012)[67] and DeYoung et al. (2009).[68] Results of the two are as follows:

    Neuroticism: negatively correlated with ratio of brain volume to remainder of intracranial volume, reduced volume in dorsomedial PFC and a segment of left medial temporal lobe including posterior hippocampus, increased volume in the mid-cingulate gryus.

    Extraversion: positively correlated with orbitofrontal cortex metabolism, increased cerebral, volume of medial orbitofrontal cortex.

    Agreeableness: negatively correlated with left orbitofrontal lobe volume in frontotemporal dementia patients, reduced volume in posterior left superior temporal sulcus, increased volume in posterior cingulate cortex.

    Conscientiousness: volume of middle frontal gyrus in left lateral PFC.

    Openness to experience: No regions large enough to be significant, although parietal cortex may be involved.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-13 06:07:00 UTC

  • WHY ISN’T ARISTOTLE OUR PROPHET? (sketch) Or is he the god of science and reason

    WHY ISN’T ARISTOTLE OUR PROPHET?

    (sketch)

    Or is he the god of science and reason? Are we a polytheistic people after all?

    “WE DO”: The people in the upper 20% want to know how to think and act

    “WE CAN”: The people in the middle 30% want to imitate the upper 20%.

    “WE CAN’T”: The people in the lower 50% want to know how to endure.

    Who are the prophets?

    ARISTOCRACY

    Alexander or Ceasar or Aurelius. (force)

    Aristotle. (knowing, science) (words)

    Da Vinci. (creating, art and craft) (actions)

    MIDDLE CLASSES

    [State] Jefferson?

    [Trade] Smith?

    LOWER CLASSES

    Jesus and Marx? (rejection, resistance)

    Will Durant was pretty much wrong about his heroes. He picked all warm fuzzy middle class consensus builders. I have to go with Murray’s analysis instead.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-04 05:04:00 UTC

  • (artificial intelligence) Just had a thought. Scary cool. If I finish propertari

    (artificial intelligence)

    Just had a thought. Scary cool.

    If I finish propertarianism, it is now possible to create both an AI, and to give it moral and ethical rules that it cannot violate. It cannot violate them through self deception via self obscurantism either.

    wow…. Gotta put out a short story on that fairly quickly. Don’t have time tho.

    THAT IS IT!!!!!

    In college I wrote software that simulated an intelligent ‘tank’, using emotional rewards, and sixteen different emotions. But my problem was I just could not figure out how to tune rules for the emotions to produce the right behavior. I couldn’t come up with consistent rules……….

    Property is a consistent rule. Property=morality. But property RIGHTS are distributed among groups differently, because different groups use different property rights structures to suit needed reproductive strategies given local structures of production, and given local competitors in production.

    So like any ‘technology’ property rights are paradigmatic: the structure of production, the structure of reproduction (the family) and the structure of property rights that allow cooperation within that paradigmatic structure.

    I don’t like the paradigm argument because it’s too closely related to ‘belief’ and not closely enough related to instrumentalism.

    MORE RECENTLY – RUNCIBLE

    We were thinking of a new company using a new programming technology and spatial manifolds to store complex data. This could use existing technology even if new forms of programming.

    The problem none of us could solve was the data structure. Language is very problematic because of its complexity and loading. But, all language can be reduced to statements of property, property rights, and voluntary or involuntary transfer.

    Property is the data structure.

    PROPERTY IS THE UNIVERSAL COMPUTATIONAL DATA STRUCTURE.

    Is this the underlying problem that my subconscious autistic mind has been fighting with for decades?????????? Is this the ‘problem’ that that frustrating enormous obsessive machine in my head ‘senses’ but could not solve? That will nearly kill me if I don’t keep it fed with problems related to it?

    I know that my psychological motivation comes from a combination of obsessive autism, the need to understand, and the desire to prevent conflict.

    But …. But I think this might be what I was intuitively searching for…… I’ve been carrying this frustration for decades… and I think this is it.

    It was very smart not to rush my book this year. I am very close now to a compact argument. The last science so to speak.

    Hmmm….

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-29 07:47:00 UTC

  • (sketch) (morality of logical methods) Infinity is a property of the set. It’s i

    (sketch) (morality of logical methods)

    Infinity is a property of the set. It’s imaginary. Operations are not imaginary, nor infinite. Operations, even imaginary operations, must be performed. I cannot perform any operation indefinitely, and so no operation can be performed infinitely.

    Likewise, no infinite set can be constructed. It can however be imagined we are told. But this is not true. No human imagination can demonstrate infinity. We can only construct imaginary operations where the scale is greater than our perception.

    We can imagine the flight of an arrow, and when we imagine infinity we do precisely the same operation. The arrow leaves our vision, the scope of measurement leaves our imagination. The trajectory is all we remember in either case.

    Even in the vaulted pairing off examples we are not measuring the size of anything, because for anything beyond our perception, that size is unimaginable. Instead, we generate more operations more frequently with some pairing offs, than we do with other pairing offs. So we may say that the operational members of any function, occur with greater frequency or higher density, but we cannot make an argument as to size, since no end is possible in the infinite, but no infinite is possible.

    The net result is that mathematicians arbitrarily alter scale, because while mathematical relations are constant, the scale is arbitrarily defined, and its correspondence with reality is likewise arbitrarily defined. As such, all mathematicians do is alter the PRECISION of any model at whim.

    The reason is that scales are utilitarian. In the sense of measuring real world objects, such scales are limited by some meaningful amount of precision. If I cut a piece of wood or metal there is some limit to the necessity of precision, and that precision determines the point of demarcation between one unit and another.

    Mathematics cannot rely on externally defined precision so they rely on sets and the excluded middle to accommodate what is in reality their arbitrary use of precision, given their arbitrary use of scale.

    I actually find this kind of cute really. Like children inventing magical causes.

    But it’s not cute. It’s magian really, and this kind of magical nonsense, or platonic fantasizing has created the pretense of mysticism that partly drowned the 20th century.

    If we can hold the inquisition responsible for burning witches out of mystical ignorance, can we hold mathematicians and physicists responsible for the mysticism that was the 20th century? Or do we blame it on the introduction of the proletarians to the demands of education and the work force?

    I don’t know who to blame. I just want to fix the problem.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-28 18:03:00 UTC

  • In our pretend world, we have a benevolent monarch. He resides in a city. The hu

    In our pretend world, we have a benevolent monarch. He resides in a city. The hub of a wheel. He administers the territory using a sales tax of 5%.

    The city has 10,000 people living in it, or 1/2 of the total population.

    The city is 100 acres x 100 acres in size, or roughly 4x4miles, and so the edge of the city is 2M from the center, and 30m walk. And 1hr total time to walk across.

    Our geography is mapped out as a set of villages of no more than 1500 people.

    Each building in the village occupies no more than 10K square feet of land, or, roughly 100 buildings, and therefore covers about 25 acres, roughly 5×5 acres, or roughly 2x2miles.

    Each village 30 minutes walk apart (2 miles)

    The closest village is 2m from the center, or 30 minutes walk.

    The circumference the city then is roughly 12miles.

    There are six villages, totaling 6×1500, or 9-10,000 people.

    How much land for food production?

    How much land for “wilderness”, on which one can either enjoy nature, or ‘hunt’ for consumption but not sale?

    (It takes an absurd amount of land to feed hunter gatherers btw)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-18 07:34:00 UTC

  • I THINK I HAVE A WIN: THE “SOLIPSISTIC – AUTISTIC” ARGUMENT. 🙂 (useful idea) (t

    I THINK I HAVE A WIN: THE “SOLIPSISTIC – AUTISTIC” ARGUMENT. 🙂

    (useful idea) (theory of mind)

    Step 1 : Theory (done)

    Step 2 : Research (in progress)

    Step 3 : Test and falsify (to-do)

    MORE: Also, it looks like male brains are created by ‘poisoning’ at every early embryonic stages, and then growing the areas that are not ‘poisoned’. Not dissimilarly to how brain damaged people learn to use other areas of the brain. Coupled with the fact that certain regions and properties can only be grown at certain early stages of development, it’s not possible to regrow some areas. This is why boys take longer to develop. They must develop compensations for ‘poisoned’ features, and girls do not.

    The problem for girls, is that they either overdevelop similar areas, or fail to mature them, and solipsism is the result of not enough maturity of development, or too much overdevelopment, to distinguish between their feelings and those of others.

    I think narcissism is an attempt to regrow, or obtain functionality that was lost, and can be considered, a property of the Solipsistic-Autistic Spectrum.

    Just as Aspies like me are extremely social whenever we can tolerate it, in order to exercise those areas, and gain those emotional rewards. 🙂

    We all need a certain level of stimulation to remain conscious, and a certain level of chemical reward to stay happy. The more means of getting those rewards the better. The fewer means of getting those rewards, the more actively we need to pursue those actions which produce rewards.

    For me anyway, I get it out of learning and problem solving. And without that particular exercise the obsessive desire of my brain to obtain positive stimulation by the only means possible for it, would crush the ‘me’ that exists in there as an experiential observer and weak influence on that obsessed machine.

    This is probably the model we should be looking at. Because at present we tend to see organs and genes as mechanical processes, and the brain as a feat of engineering whose parts are broken or not, rather than as a bonsai tree or topiary the growth of which is shaped by chemistry at precise points in its development.

    Humans have very few forms of incentives. I have, in propertarianism, reduced those incentives to statements of property. And while I have a theory of consciousness, I did not yet have an adequate theory of mind. And what this organic representation of brain development means, is that human behavior can be reduced to a small number of reward systems for accumulating experiences (short term) and property (medium term).

    Furthermore it is an action-based theory of mind and incentive, developed in time. And ‘action’ always provides greater explanatory power than ‘state’.

    We are creatures of action. We act. We must act. And we must act in time.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-17 05:08:00 UTC