Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Gods install firmware. 😉

    Gods install firmware. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-21 09:22:00 UTC

  • (Ok. I wrote two important pieces this morning before breakfast. Does that mean

    (Ok. I wrote two important pieces this morning before breakfast. Does that mean I can take the rest of the day off? No? Damn. That’s ok. I’d rather work some more anyway. lol)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-21 09:21:00 UTC

  • HOW GODS EXIST AND FUNCTION by Curt Doolittle and Stephen Wells -by Stephen Well

    HOW GODS EXIST AND FUNCTION

    by Curt Doolittle and Stephen Wells

    -by Stephen Wells:

    The mistake in reasoning of those who “give it up to God” is generally one of falsely assuming that any higher power operates like a magic wand.

    Author Napoleon Hill who spent years studying successful people noted that the spiritual difference of successful over non successful people was that successful people assigned their faith to God to provide solutions for for them to take action on themselves, rather than for God to simply make their problems go away.

    ***In short, God was to be found within their own subconscious and expressed by acting on their intuition, which itself was disciplined and directed by conscious thought and continuous action towards a clearly defined goal.***

    -by Curt Doolittle

    Yes, this is the correct(scientific) definition of god.

    Gods exists as information.

    That information is trained into your intuition

    That training organizes and filters your intuition.

    Primarily it prevents self deception or, (and this is true) deception by your genes, old, and middle brains.

    And for very obvious reasons, anthropomorphizing that information is more effective at extracting truthfulness from your intuition than you are able to do without it – because intuition will let your genes influence you chaotically while anthropomorphized intuition falsifies your intuition (your auto association) to predict how that character would interpret your thoughts. In other words, we can use our social instincts to override our chaotic intuition by creating a framework for truthful prediction.

    This is pretty obvious once you think it thru. Our bodies and faculties are our only system of measurement. But since we are human and evolved consciousness with enough recursion to predict others’ actions, feelings, thoughts, and wants, we can use other people (archetypes) as systems of measurement as well.

    Is there a difference between what would god want me to do, what would Jesus want me to do, what would Gandalf or Aristotle, me to do, and what would my grandmother want me to do?

    No there isn’t other than a god is a proxy for your social order.

    Systems of measurement to provide a neural economy superior predictive power.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-21 09:13:00 UTC

  • SIMPLE DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE (or, why you don’t get it at f

    SIMPLE DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE

    (or, why you don’t get it at first)

    Jason asks, “is this sentence correct ePrime?”

    We probably need to stop using the ePrime reference and simply teach people the steps to transforming fuzzy intuitive language to very clear operational language.

    The first step is eliminating the Copula (the connector): the verb to-be. This connector says “imply the connection” it does not state the connection. This is how ‘suggestion’ (deceit) is inserted into our otherwise very precise, english language. It’s the basis of all sophism.

    The second step, which may be necessary to complete the first step requires starting sentences with the subject rather than the actor – and this is what’s probably causing your struggle.

    P and ePrime ask you to think in terms of actor rather than subject. To put the actor before the subject in composing your “episode”. Thinking in, writing in, speaking in actors, adds a computational cycle, because the more advanced our thinking the more we’re thinking about subjects rather than actors. And the more ‘generalized’ our statement – which means the more masculine and analytic – the more the subject is the basis for context and the less the actor is the basis for content. So yes, operational language is slightly more burdensome, because it is more precise – at least until you habituate it.

    The Example:

    –“With the ability to protect it with violent defense, exercised at will, on an individual and group level, “—

    Change to:

    —At an individual or group level, [we / they] [can / develop the ability to] protect [it / or restate subject] with violent defense, exercised at will.”—

    Phrase:

    1 – actor

    2 – acted upon

    3 – consequence

    So:

    1 – Repeat with Collection of Phrases.

    2- Producing a Complete sentence.

    3- That explicitly states the COMPLETE transformation (Transaction)

    In other worlds:

    – Actor, Operation, Subject: “John threw the ball (to mark who caught it).”

    and not:

    – Subject, Actor, Operation: “The ball john threw (to mark who caught it.)”

    Language in operational terms is an accounting system

    That’s the secret of operational language “full accounting of changes in state”.

    Phrase (debit) Journal Entry , Phrase (credit) Journal Entry

    Sentence = Ledger Entry.

    Paragraph = Income Statement

    Story = Balance Sheet

    If you begin to see ‘the grammars’ in everything you will finally understand why P is so powerful … and it will, at some point, horrify you with wonder at it all.

    Language is a means of measurement.

    Arithmetic is a very precise language

    Accounting is just a very precise language.

    Geometry is another precise language

    Programming is another precise language

    P-Law is another precise language

    P-Testimony is the most precise language possible

    All language functions as a system of measurement using measurements provided by the human body. and accounting of changes in state in that measurement system. Why? Because the brain does nothing other than detect and predict, changes in state.

    We can either account well(operational language), or account poorly(ordinary language), or account deceptively (postmodern/feminist language)

    I hope this helps because it is the summary of the meaning of operational prose.

    ====

    attn: Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-21 09:00:00 UTC

  • Revoke citizenship to 1965. Revoke benefits. Prohibit anyone with socialist or p

    Revoke citizenship to 1965. Revoke benefits. Prohibit anyone with socialist or postmodernist activities or ‘alien’ religions from residency or citizenship. charge 30% additional income taxes for non-citizens.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-21 08:16:00 UTC

  • If I wrote about art, fashion, relationships, and sex instead of this serious sh

    If I wrote about art, fashion, relationships, and sex instead of this serious sh-t I’d be happier, and way more popular. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 23:16:00 UTC

  • P LOGIC IN RELATIONSHIPS You don’t use P-logic to argue with your wife, girlfrie

    P LOGIC IN RELATIONSHIPS

    You don’t use P-logic to argue with your wife, girlfriend – even if you probably should use it with your daughters. You use P to UNDERSTAND your wife or girlfriend, so that you can ask the right questions and give the right answers.

    The most important of which isn’t to tell her her feelings are wrong, or her desires are wrong, but whether they are possible or not, and whether they would achieve desired ends or not. Women need you to listen while they work through suppressing the emotion and impulse. They need you to support them as they work through those thoughts impulses and emotions so that you relieve them of the burden of doing it alone. And they need you to help them come to a conclusion on their own – just as they help you through your male anger or frustration when it clouds your vision. And they need you to say ‘no’ when it’s your fking job to say ‘these are the limits’ beyond which you are not willing to go – and not apologize for it. Be a man. Give her room to exercise emotional frustration by emotional expression like you exercise emotional frustration by physical expression.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 23:15:00 UTC

  • THOUGHTS ON AMERICAN MILITARY TECH Thinking…. Something is wrong with the mili

    THOUGHTS ON AMERICAN MILITARY TECH

    Thinking…. Something is wrong with the military’s robotic warfare initiative, that has to do with how it’s using vulnerable monolithic modules on top of heavy armor, and cramming too much into each platform.

    But my intuition is that they’re applying missile and airframe tech to land vehicles, and putting it on a platforms rather than building AI capacity into the platform – because Missiles and airframes face very different problems from vehicles.

    Going to have to look into the requirements if I can spare a couple of hours, because current AI tech shouldn’t need this vulnerability. Given that people in that industry aren’t stupid I clearly don’t understand something.

    Other issue is that we have to fly armor to the battlefield and if that’s true we shouldn’t rely on armor. Most obvious example is success of the Abrams, but failure of our personnel carriers, particularly Bradley and Humvee, but inability to copy the Russians’ use of tank platform and armor as personnel carriers because of weight.

    Third is our failure to equip light infantry with an intermediate weapon – a more advanced version of the Russian RPG, and transport.

    And I am not sure why we should be looking at overseas deployment strategies if we’re getting out of the policing business – and if we can’t possibly compete with china and Russia in arming the not-first-world, and we need Europe to rearm on their own.

    I am not sure we should be engaging in urban warfare rather than adopting the Russian strategy of just using artillery to reduce it to rubble, or the Chinese strategy of just building a fortress and overwhelming the opposition.

    There is no chance for the USA to fight a land war in Asia or Africa without a colony or base structure, and we no longer have an economic interest or the economic ability to do finance a world of bases.

    The policing strategy has to end. The only way of fighting a war not on our territory – where we want to preserve capital – is to use the Russian strategy of saturation with artillery or in our case, bombs and missiles. The only reason to have people on the ground is political. Reducing a country to rubble, their infrastructure to rubble, and their military to scrap doesn’t take standing there. It takes AI’s and drones to discover targets, long range bombers, and missiles – and lots and lots of them. the only reason to put people on the ground is to police and hold the territory – which we shouldn’t be doing other than where we can fight land wars: in our homelands.

    We also have to come to terms with the reality that nuclear weapons that White People have refused to deploy against each other are going to be used in the future, and probably not infrequently.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 23:06:00 UTC

  • “The West had two chances to save Russia, and ultimately the West (not counting

    —“The West had two chances to save Russia, and ultimately the West (not counting Crimean war). Simply roll in and back the White Army during the first and second Bolshevik revolutions and elminate all of them, and their families.”—James Santagata

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 22:40:00 UTC

  • The only greater tragedy than the fall of the soviet union is the west’s crime o

    The only greater tragedy than the fall of the soviet union is the west’s crime of not saving the russian people from suffering because of it. The restoration of eastern europe was great, yes, but it was offset by the collapse of everything east of it was and remains a terrible horror. The russian colonial program failed like the european colonial programs failed. The lesson is that we cannot colonize other peoples – nor let them colonize us.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 22:12:00 UTC