Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “Beatings are, in fact, effective.”–Shalamov

    –“Beatings are, in fact, effective.”–Shalamov

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 20:22:00 UTC

  • TOO DENSE BUT ANY MATHEMATICIAN WILL GROK IT As far as I know all truth refers t

    TOO DENSE BUT ANY MATHEMATICIAN WILL GROK IT

    As far as I know all truth refers to testimony (correspondence) and we use the term ‘loosely’ for many purposes. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0).

    We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations).

    We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false.

    As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify.

    In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass).

    Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination.

    Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality.

    This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 20:20:00 UTC

  • Violence is the only answer. It is the least expensive, fastest, most certain an

    Violence is the only answer. It is the least expensive, fastest, most certain answer, with the most dependable consequences.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 19:59:00 UTC

  • No Psychos Please. (You know who I’m talking about) Look. I’m not running a fan

    No Psychos Please. (You know who I’m talking about)

    Look. I’m not running a fan club. I use this forum as my workshop. I’ve been doing it pretty much since 2012. I love that people learn and that people help me. But I’m not looking for a club. Revolutions require demands, plans, and institutions that persist their achievements.

    I don’t want to be associated with psychos.

    Being a bit of an aspie is work enough. lol)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 19:57:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. CAN SOMEONE EDUCATE ME? – Metapedia – InfoGal

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    CAN SOMEONE EDUCATE ME?
    – Metapedia
    – InfoGalactic
    – Conservapedia
    What is the potential for any of these?

    (BTW: I know Scholarpedia, I already use it.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 19:34:16 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. Every time I try to correct some leftist bias

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    Every time I try to correct some leftist bias or pejorative in Wikipedia they justify it or block me. Time for an alternative.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 18:19:59 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. I can’t take the time to do it, but the entir

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    I can’t take the time to do it, but the entire wikipedia knowledge base is really small… like 60GB. It can be copied in whole or part as long as it’s attributed. It’s pretty easy to create an alt-wikipedia and de-left the articles.

    To propertarianize them is… work.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 18:09:45 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. —People define the word philosophy differen

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    —People define the word philosophy differently: My first year of college my philosophy professor defined it as “the rational appropriation of conscious subjectivity.” Would you comment on this definition?”—Joe Cooley

    1) Philosophy consists of the act of REASONING by attempting to produce paradigms (sets of constant relations) of understanding (decidability) in the absence of sufficient measurements (observations) to do so, because of logical(cognitive) and physical(human scale) and technological(mechanical and logical), and economic (cost) limitations. For this reason, all disciplines started as branches of philosophy until they evolved into sciences (measurements) consisting of constant relations in paradigms(networks).

    2) We create WISDOM LITERATURES using Mythology(supernormal), Literature (fiction), History, Science, Mathematics, and produce at least the following by conflation:
    ( a ) Religion: (Emotional) false history, fictional literature, pseudoscience, occult, and fictional law (fictions)
    ( b ) Philosophy: (Verbal) Sophisms (arguments)
    ( c ) Pseudoscience and Practical Knowledge (utilities):
    Note the Physical>Emotional>Intellectual(verbal) scope of those literatures, and the fictional means we have created to claim pretense of knowledge using them.

    3) While Aristotle began with a hierarchy of categories by which to divide knowledge – the categories of philosophy we still used – he lacked knowledge of how to do better than he did. Today we can include metaphysics(grammars), psychology(aesthetics), sociology(ethics), the sciences(epistemology), testimony(speech), law(cooperation), economics(production), politics(commons), group strategy(competition/evolution).
    Note that Socrates practiced Criticism(Critique), Plato practiced Justification(Pilpul), only Aristotle Practiced Testimony (due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit).

    4) As far as I know I’ve completed Testimony (epistemology) by converting it to a science (truth) – although we must wait a few decades to see if I’m correct (its very very unlikely that I err). That means that all measurement (“Truth”) is now a question of the sciences. That means that philosophy now consists of the study of CHOICE. Not the true, but the MEANINGFUL, PREFERABLE and the GOOD.

    5) Until we solved the problem of epistemology, we lack a most parsimonious paradigm (truth) – meaning a set of constant relations across the entire spectrum of knowledge from the physical, to the emotional to the intellectual, and could not separate philosophy into truth, good, preference, and meaning. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm (truth) but there are an infinite number of paradigms that provide us understanding(meaning), preference(choice), and good (collective).

    So the domain of philosophy is at present – if not always – the use of fragmentary information in kaleidic (unpredictable) time, to reason out paradigms (networks of constant relations) that help us understand (Meaningful), how to choose how to achieve the Preferable and the Good.

    As such philosophy, as meaning, preference, and good, like creativity, will never end.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 18:00:50 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. KEYNES, MARX VS CLASSICAL: THE ART OF LYING O

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    KEYNES, MARX VS CLASSICAL: THE ART OF LYING

    Once you look at his notes, and understand Keynes converted Marx’s ‘dialectic’ (sophism) into Keynesian ‘innumeracy’ (ludic fallacy), you suspect his malincentives.

    But once you learn Rule of Law(Classical) vs Arbitrary Rule (Keynes), you realize that pseudoscience (Marx) and innumeracy (Keynes) are the only two methods by which to distract you from the underlying conflict: Rule of Law and Arbitrary Rule. Just as the marxists and the postmoderns have distracted us with Capitalism (Rule of Law) versus Socialism (Arbitrary Rule). The success of the Keynesian method is predicated on dialectic (loading, framing, and obscuring) rather than measurement.

    Why? What capital (that which we forgo opportunities or expend the results of opportunities to) invest in. So what Keynesianism achieves by innumeracy (fraud) is what Marx achieves by dialectic (sophism): the intentional distraction from the measurement of changes in capital to the measurement of the results of the consumption of it: including genetic, normative, traditional, knowledge, and institutional capital. And why did we (Hayek and others) fail?

    Because under democracy one cannot stop the mob from raiding the accumulated capital of millennia, nor the pseudo-intellectual class, and the political class from profiting from the sale.

    The Chicago school attempted to preserve rule of law and markets but the left has been too successful, the economists too well rewarded, and the financial industry, academy, and the state too well rewarded for doing so.

    Hence why Athens spent all the silver from the mine they discovered; and why Spain spent all the gold it took from the new world in failed wars against the Netherlands; and why Americans spent all the income from conquest of a continent and selling it off to genetic middle classes from Europe. … Until they ran out of middle classes.

    SOPHISM IS EVERYWHERE.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 17:35:15 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. (repost) Cities = Markets = Decreased Opportu

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (repost)
    Cities = Markets = Decreased Opportunity Cost. It’s the ability to communicate that decreases opportunity cost.

    Opportunity cost = increasing choices. The question is whether increasing choices produces increasing outcomes.

    For business it does. For genes it does not. This is the fundamental problem. Cities Destroy Genes in exchange for lower opportunity costs of consumption.

    So we have a choice: (a) continue to bring people to capital at the cost of genes (genetic capital), or (b) bring capital to people to preserve genetic capital.

    In other words, redistribute the opportunity costs.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 16:47:55 UTC