Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • WHY DO YOU RESIST TRUTHFULNESS IN THE COMMONS? In other words, why you want room

    WHY DO YOU RESIST TRUTHFULNESS IN THE COMMONS?

    In other words, why you want room to load frame, suggest, obscure, fictionalize and deceive? There is a difference between false, useful, preferable, good, and true. I only worry about false, criminal, unethical, and immoral. The market can choose whatever it wants as long as it is not false (including criminal, unethical, and immoral.) So literature and myth are different from fictionalism.

    Fictionalism (religion, idealism, pseudoscience, deception) lies.

    Myth and literature advise.

    Science and law decide.

    There is no place for justifying the conflation of the competition between advice and decidability into the monopoly authority and faith.

    It’s just lying. Plain and simple.

    And the consequences for jews, christians, and muslims have been tragic and the consequences for the world because of jews, christians, and muslims has been tragic.

    So what excuse do you make for THE PRESERVATION OF EVIL?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 12:02:00 UTC

  • MUCH WORTH READING. FOR EVERYONE

    http://qz.com/778767/to-tell-someone-theyre-wrong-first-tell-them-how-theyre-right/VERY MUCH WORTH READING. FOR EVERYONE.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 11:47:00 UTC

  • CAN AN AI TESTIFY? —“Can AI perform statements?”— Skye Stewart Brilliant que

    CAN AN AI TESTIFY?

    —“Can AI perform statements?”— Skye Stewart

    Brilliant question. The question is, who is speaking? The AI, or the developers, or the information providers, or the managers of it?

    In propertarian ethics, an AI is always owned like a pet. We may not harm it but that does not mean we grant it peerage. (I am not sure we can).

    But that said, even if we grant an AI rights by proxy of ownership like we do corporations, (which is what we will do), then can we punish an AI for false testimony? Can an AI make false testimony? Can an Ai speak without due diligence? Or would we have to punish the programmers that produce an AI that could lie or couls speak without due diligence?

    As far as I know you have to give an AI a means of decidability, and that humans have many incentives to produce falsehoods and ai’s have none of them. Our problem is instead, reducing error in GENERAL AI’s (remember that all current ai is not general ai). And to do that we need vast stores of information, and human-speed search and retrieval across all those domains.

    My personal view is that AI’s cannot report but not testify. AI’s can report but it is their producers and owners it proxies for.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 11:24:00 UTC

  • “You’re saying all mathematical statements are true or false but the liar parado

    —“You’re saying all mathematical statements are true or false but the liar paradox is one example of an ordinary language sentence which hasn’t got a truth-value, right? Well, stated that way, I’d say you’re right about all of that, but are you also saying that the liar sentence expresses a proposition? That might be the part where it starts to get problematic.”—

    Good question.

    In short, we can ask a question, or we can assert an opinion, conflate the two, or we can speak nonsense. And only humans (so far) can ask, assert, conflate, and fail at all of them. But out of convenience, we subtract from the real to produce the ideal, and speak of the speech as if it can act on its own.

    Just to illustrate that the test we are performing (context) limits both what we are saying and what we can say. From the most decidable to the least:

    1 – The mathematical category of statements, (tautological) single category. (relative measure)

    2 – The ideal category of statements, (logical) multiple categories. (relative meaning)

    3 – The operational category of statements (existential possibility)

    (sequential possibility )

    4 – The correspondent (empirical) category of statements. all categories. ( full correspondence )

    5 – The rational category of statements ( an actor making rational choices) (‘praxeological’)

    6 – The ‘moral’ category of statements ( test of reciprocity)

    7 – The fully accounted category of statements (tests of scope)

    8 – The valued (loaded) category of statements. (full correspondence and loaded with subjective value)

    9 – The deceptive category of statements (suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and outright lying.

    We can speak a statement in any one or more of these (cumulative) contexts.

    So for example, statements are not true or false or unknowable, but the people who speak them speak truthfully, falsely, or undecidedly. So performatively (as you have mentioned) only people can make statements.

    However, to make our lives easier, we eliminate unnecessary dimensions of existence unused in our scope of inquiry, and we conflate terms across those dimensions of existence, and we very often don’t even understand ourselves what we are saying. (ie; a number consists of a function for producing a positional name, from an ordered series of symbols in some set of dimensions. Or, only people can act and therefore only people can assert, and therefore no assertions are true or false, the person speaking speaks truth or falsehood. etc.)

    This matters primarily because no dimensional subset in logic closed without appeal to the consequence dimensional subset. In other words, only reality provides full means of decidability.

    Or translated differently, there just as there is little action value in game theory and little action value in more than single regression analysis, there is little value after first order logic, since decidability is provided by appeal to additional information in additional dimensions rather than its own. Which is, as far as I know, the principal lesson of analytic philosophy and the study of logic, of the 20th century.

    Or as I might restate it, we regress into deeper idealism through methodological specialization than is empirically demonstrable in value returned. Then we export these ‘ideals’ as pseudosciences to the rest of the population. This leading to wonderful consequences like the copenhagen consensus. Or the many worlds hypothesis, or String Theory. Or keynesian economics. Or the (exceedingly frustrating) nonsense the public seems to fascinate over as a substitute for numerology, astrology, magic, and the rigorous hard work required

    FOUNDATIONS OF LOGIC

    The foundations of logic like those of mathematics are terribly simple as subsets of reality. But by doubling down in the 19th and 20th centuries all we have found is that we say rather nonsensical terms like ‘the axiom of choice’ or ‘limits’ rather than ‘undecidable without appeal to information provided by existential context’. After all, math is just the discipline of scale independent measurement, and the deduction that is possible given the precision of constant relations using identical unitary measures. Logic is nothing more than than set operations. Algorithms are nothing more than sequential operations restoring time. Operations are nothing more than algorithms restoring physical transformation, time and cost. etc.

    As a consequence, I find most of this kind of terminological discourse … silly hermeneutics. As Poincare stated ‘that isn’t math its philosophy’. Or as I would say, ‘with platonism we depart science and join theology. It may be secular theology in that it is ideal rather than supernatural, but it is theology none the less’.

    it is one thing to say ‘by convention in math (or logic or whatever dimension we speak of) we use this colloquialism (half truth) as a matter of convenience. It is not ‘true’ as in scientifically true. It is just the best approximation given the brevity we exercise in simplifying our work.

    There exists only one possible ‘True’: the most parsimonious and correspondent testimony one can speak in the available language in the given context. Everything else is a convention.

    Ergo, if you do not know the operational construction of the terms that you use, you do not know of what you speak. That does not mean you cannot speak truth any more than monkey cannot accidentally type one of the Sonnets.

    This is why the operationalist movement in math we call Intuitionism failed.

    Anyway. Well formed (grammatically correct) statements in math may or may not be decidable but our intention is to produce decidable statements. In symbolic logic, well formed (grammatically correct) statements may or may not be decidable. in logic (language), well formed (grammatically correct) statements are difficult to construct because of the categorical difference between constant relations (ideals in math), constant categories (ideals in formal logic), and inconstant categories (ordinary language). Furthermore the process of DEDUCTION using premises (or logical summation) limits us to utility of true statements. Ergo for that purpose statements can only evaluate to true or not-true (including false and undecidable). While for the purpose of INDUCTION (transfer of meaning by seeding free association, or the construction of possibility by the same means) seeks only possibility or impossibility not truth or falsehood.

    Now. I have written far too much already, so I won’t try to increase the precision of what I’ve written, but hopefully the answer is the same:

    How can you claim to make a truth proposition and demand precise language when your premises are mere demonstrably falsehoods used by convention?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 10:58:00 UTC

  • “Are all nationalist movements unpatriotic? Are you alleging all nationalism to

    —“Are all nationalist movements unpatriotic? Are you alleging all nationalism to be right wing?”—

    Let’s ask the question empirically.

    Patriotic can refer to nation or state. It’s an ambiguous term.

    Define left wing?

    have left wing movements been nationalistic or universalist?

    what can we learn from the motives of the left wing movements?

    what reproductive strategy does left wing movement?

    I would classify my work as left wing nationalist. (which acknowledging bothers me). I’m all for highly redistributive nationalism. I mean, that’s national socialism really.

    You can try to solve the class problem vertically (nationalism) or horizontally (universalism). but the result is that nationalism produces evolution, and universalism produces devolution. And there is no way around it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 09:37:00 UTC

  • Why are men more violent than women? (Stupid question). Why do women have more c

    Why are men more violent than women? (Stupid question). Why do women have more children than men? (Stupid for the same reason.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 18:04:00 UTC

  • (From elsewhere) We are in the midst of a civil war to end the postwar order, en

    (From elsewhere)

    We are in the midst of a civil war to end the postwar order, end the postmodern message, and restore the historical norm of a balance of power between nations and their core states.

    That civil war will transition to action sometime in the next 18 months. Or within 120 days of the next economic cycle. Certainly prior to the next election cycle.

    What the Academy, State, Media, Financial sector are doing, is fighting for their lives right now. And it doesn’t matter. It’s kabuki theatre. Momentum continues to build.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 17:17:00 UTC

  • JOSLIN HITS A HOME RUN Patriotism expresses the sentiment of individual ownershi

    JOSLIN HITS A HOME RUN

    Patriotism expresses the sentiment of individual ownership of the commons.

    (Ownership incentive)

    Collectivism expresses consumer incentives of the commons

    (Consumption incentives)

    Anti-authority libertarianism expresses extraction incentives of the commons (Exploitation incentives)

    Only one of them is sustainable.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 15:29:00 UTC

  • ARGUMENTS WITH THE SOPHOMORIC FAITHFUL Ok. So, again. WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM. Yo

    ARGUMENTS WITH THE SOPHOMORIC FAITHFUL

    Ok. So, again. WHAT IS YOUR CRITICISM. You have none, right?

    HERE IS A SIMPLE PASSAGE WITH CLEAR ARGUMENT. WHAT IS FALSE?

    One can experience the feelings of love, friendship, passion, touch color, smell, fear, and a host of combinations. One can experience drugs, theatre, and music. And one an remember those experiences, and one can empathize with those experiences in others.

    One can understand the causes of those experiences independent of their experiences, just as one can ‘feel’ the experiences independent of an understanding of the causes.

    It is true that an understanding of causes limits the range of experiences. It is true that the value of experiences limits the conclusions we draw from the causes. But it is the competition between experience and causality, like the competition between imagination and reason, like the competition between literature and history, like the competition between reason and science, that prevents our development of addiction behavior and zealotry to defend it, and scientistic behavior and zealotry to defend it. And the method of decidability we can use for both limits is ‘truth’.

    For this reason we can separate good ‘religions’ from evil ‘religions’. And that line of demarcation is simple: (a) imagination rather than action, (b) deflation (competition) vs monopoly: fictionalism (conflation) rather than competition between true and wise, and advise and command, and history and myth. We can ‘rank’ better religions and worse religions by the same means.

    And so it is profoundly clarifying, to both Know and Feel, such that we form a competition between knowing and feeling, if for no other reason than to prevent of harm. And specifically, to prevent the harm of the abrahamic deceits, which succeed by self induced drug addictions through the ritualistic production of endorphins.

    (The answer is, it’s all true)

    Try to construct an argument. Because all you’re doing is proving my assertion that you can’t.

    You are just a liar by obscurantist means.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 14:53:00 UTC

  • The “Unreasonable effectiveness” trope annoys the hell out of me. The only reaso

    The “Unreasonable effectiveness” trope annoys the hell out of me. The only reason this ‘magical mathematics’ nonsense perpetuates, and the average person is still afraid of mathematics, is because it’s taught as a superstition.

    Math is trivial. 1 = any unitary measure. By the combination of some number of symbols – in the current case 0123456789, we can create positional names. By adding, subtracting units, and by adding and subtracting sets of units (multiplication and division), we can create positional names (numbers) for an unlimited set of positions. we can create names of positions in an unlimited number of directions (dimensions). We can create positions relative to any other position (relative positions). We can create changes in positions of relative positions. producing numbers, sets, and fields, and topographies (many different fields.

    So the fact that math is ‘unreasonable’ is rather ridiculous. It’s people who are unreasonable. Math is TRIVIAL. Deduction in multiple dimensions is hard because we are not well suited to it.

    I mean, we have 26 letters, and 44 phonemes in the english language. If we were ‘elegant’ we might increase the 26 to 44 letters, so that english was easier to read. but look at what we can say with those 44 phonemes, 26 characters, and 250K words in some including terms, and maybe 200K words that are not archaic.

    There are roughly 100,000 word-families in the English language.

    A native English speaking person knows between 10,000 (uneducated) to 20,000 (educated) word families.

    A person needs to know 8,000-9,000 word families to enjoy reading a book.

    A person with a vocabulary size of 2,500 passive word-families and 2,000 active word-families can speak a language fluently.

    Of those we can pretty much COMMUNICATE anything, although in wordy prose, with only 300 words.

    Now think of how much MORE you can say in language than you can say in mathematics.

    Why should it surprise you that running around with a perfectly scalable yardstick that can measure any distance, allows you to measure and compare anything? It shouldn’t. It’s freaking obvious.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 14:46:00 UTC