Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • CAN WE MEASURE TRUTHFULNESS? (reposted to the main page for others to view) Degr

    CAN WE MEASURE TRUTHFULNESS?

    (reposted to the main page for others to view)

    Degrees of Precision In Truthfulness

    4 – Imagined = we imagine it is possible because we cannot reason that it is impossible.

    3 – Empirical = Correlative, observable, measurable (not quantifiable)

    2 – Narrative = Sympathetic (sequential, brevity).

    1 – Demonstrable = causal (descriptive, operational).

    0 – Perfect (ideal) Parsimony (Name(referrer) of transformation rules (referent). In other words, names of functions, and functions.

    The problem as I see it is that any narrative (form of brevity for the purpose of meaning) must both add information (sympathetic analogy for transfer of meaning by association) and remove information (operational detail overloading sympathetic analogy), thus leaving us with Names that refer to sequences (recipes) of operations (or natural transformations), or the sequences (recipes) for statements of Truthfulness (warrantied by due diligence of knowledge of Truth).

    Since all knowledge is fungible and justification impossible, I do not make the traditional error of categorizing knowledge as justified belief (confidence in knowledge). I treat every opportunity-for-knowledge (hypothesis) from identity through causality as knowledge and truthfulness and falsehood as a measure of it.

    I treat truth candidacy as an estimate by triangulation of the survival from due diligence under testimonialism – which unlike CR includes provides a checklist of due diligences (measures) for each dimension of reality, including costs of transformation – which we can use to compare estimates of truth. This differs from CP in that I am unable to falsify the hypothesis that cost of transformation is a proxy for opportunity cost, and therefore in matters physical(natural) and sentient(human), all other things being equal, appears (empirically and rationally) to inform CP if not solve it. Neither nature nor man refuse optimum opportunities. Nature cannot. Man appears not to. (he does err however.) I can find no existential counter examples. This roughly equates to the scientific method’s rational(logical) use of ‘parsimony’ and provides explanation for it.

    Justification is necessary in matters of the export of ethical and moral risk. So it’s not that justification has no value to man. Justification is how we defend both error (loss), and success (gain). But justification is a moral-ethical question, whereas adjudication (truth) exists independently of consequences.

    The fact that we must struggle to deflate our own behaviors in this way is indicative of our evolution as negotiating and cooperating creatures not tellers-of-truth. We evolved sympathy and utility. And truth is but a consequence of the pragmatism of negotiation.

    So to some degree I tend to think in terms of the truthfulness (survival from due diligence) of our knowledge, not ‘knowledge of truth’ (justification of our knowledge). But in practice they are the same thing from different sides of the coin: survival from due diligence against falsehood. I think I am more sensitive to this matter because CR/CP provide no means of measurement (deflation), whereas I have provided the same deflation in all possible dimensions of knowledge that has been applied to existential and pure relations by mathematics.

    I hope this is interesting for you. I don’t mean to change your mind, but merely to walk through it and see if you have criticisms, as well as to provide others with an education in what seems to be a fairly rare bit of expertise: the transition from justificationary(constructive) to evolutionary(survival) truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 10:17:00 UTC

  • We are in the early phases of seeing Google, Facebook, Amazon transition into ut

    We are in the early phases of seeing Google, Facebook, Amazon transition into utilities that will be as regulated as any other, and in ways microsoft avoided but they will not. Even if it is microsoft that has been far more evil by intent than Google and Amazon. I still consider FB pretty borderline anti-western.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 22:36:00 UTC

  • BANNING DEDICATED FOOLS COMMITTED TO THEIR CERTAINTY On advice of followers, beg

    BANNING DEDICATED FOOLS COMMITTED TO THEIR CERTAINTY

    On advice of followers, beginning in January I started banning people who were trolling. It improved the conversation immensely. I then prohibited ridicule, memes and links as substitutes for arguments. It improved the conversation immensely. I’m currently considering banning the terminally stupid but willfully argumentative.

    There is a small group of people committed to priors who do not follow me to learn or contribute but to defend their intellectual lifelines. These people are all functionalists whose fundamentalism is resistant to deflation, operationalization, reciprocity and full accounting.

    Some of us search for an cult, ideology, philosophy, pseudoscience that we think is ‘right’ or will ‘work’ because it suits our interests. Some of us search for truth because truth is in our interests. Some of us try to achieve what is in our interests AND continue the never ending search for truth at the same time, while constantly reforming our philosophies (means of decidability and narratives) as we constantly use truth to eliminate our ignorance, error and bias.

    So I am not terribly interested in people who are ‘frozen’ and seek to prevent the process of continuous reformation of truth and philosophy as we continue to learn. That is why I can appreciate all the various social orders people prefer. I dont care which one you want for you. I care only that it’s possible, and what you believe about it is not false. Whether it is ‘good’ or ‘right’ is up to you. Whether it’s possible and true is something I have strong arguments for and against. This is why I advocate for a thousand nations: so that we all live in social orders that suit our interests.

    I don’t mind stupid if you don’t waste my time. But I really don’t want my time (and others) wasted. After all, I’m not hosting a public service here. This is my classroom and I use my classroom for research. And if you’re not helping me with my research with quality advice and criticism you’re just wasting my time trying to perpetuate your illusion. Dunning Kruger is everywhere and fictionalism in all its forms exists to provide the unable with means of resistance against the truth which would force them to confront the reality of their inadequacy.

    I can’t play basketball or professional football. I am physically inadequate and mentally uninterested and emotionally unrewarded in them. I am more than a tad insensitive to insecurities, fears and incuriousness, and am inadequate for many professions and social circumstances. Face your inadequacy. It is the only means of transcending it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 21:28:00 UTC

  • NON PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY #1: “WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING”. This

    NON PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY #1: “WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING”.

    This is an illogical question – another pseudo-rational word game. A conflation of the ideal and the real. In order to ask this question, something must exist – namely the person asking the question – and we must be able to identify some ‘nothing’ to refer to. The word nothing, as far as I know, can only mean ‘nothing exists of consequence’ not the absence of existence. So, as far as I know, ‘nothing’ is impossible. In other words, nothing still requires existence (persistence) of whatever you call ‘nothing’ in contrast to ‘something’. I can’t imagine any ‘nothing’ that isn’t ‘something’ or a category of something within something. I can imagine various combinations of ignorance, error and falsehood. But I can’t imagine something that both exists (a referent of nothing) and does not exist at the same time. In other words, this is another problem of nonsense language. If operationally stated we find: “If I can perceive persistence, then why does that which I perceive persist? And so far we are at least close enough to an answer that we can say something always persists, the question is reducible to (a) what is its lifecycle? And (b) is that lifecycle unique, iterative, or a subset of a larger lifecycle?

    I keep a catalog of the kinds of bias and error man man suffers from in each era of his evolution of his knowledge. And if we subtract the theories reliant upon the errors and biases man suffers from, and leave only those theories that reflect constant simple observable laws of the universe, then the universe is merely constructed from a portfolio of positive and negative forces that act upon one another, and is constructed of a regular geometry of those forces little different from the ordinary universe we perceive at human scale, with the remote possibility that some of those forces propagate at speeds different from (both faster and slower) than the electromagnetic spectrum that we are currently able to react to and act upon.

    The error (evil) of platonism (Idealism) exists everywhere, just like the other forms of fictionalism. But just as categories must be tested by logic, and logic tested by correspondence, and correspondence tested by operations, and operations tested by full accounting, fictionalism cannot survive tests of operational construction. Whether that fictionalism be the supernatural(pseudo mythical), the ideal (pseudo-real), the pseudo-rational, or the pseudo-scientific. The reason all those forms of fictionalism exist, is simply the failure to fully test the available dimensions against ignorance, error, bias and deceit.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 20:00:00 UTC

  • Judaism is a manufactured (revisionist) history. Same for christianity. Same for

    Judaism is a manufactured (revisionist) history. Same for christianity. Same for islam. They are, as far as historians seem able to construct, a conflation of the egyptian myths imported into persia, combined with zoroastrian myths, combined with greek interpretations of persian myths, evolving thru mithraism, culminating is sol invictus (it seems), and then iteratively modified like the plot of a movie over decades. In other words, the abrahamic cults practiced fictionalism (the conflation of monomyth/archetype, myth, history, law, as a rebellion against the major empires that had defeated the (primitive) tribal cultures of the levant. Just as we see marxism’s class warfare against the aristocratic civilizations by the inferior peoples, evolve into postmodern warfare against the aristocratic civilizations by the inferior peoples. Judaism starts with the usual animism, integrates and evovles as a babylonian heresy. christianity as a jewish heresy. And islam as a christian heresy. Each one taking a few hundred years to develop a canon. The consequence is that everyone who adopted these cults regressed – just as was intended by the authors: as a rebellion against the aristocratic civilizations of Europe, Persia, India, and China.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 19:10:00 UTC

  • try to avoid exotic foods. And I am allergic to the by products of fermentation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf2YLZgU2U4I try to avoid exotic foods. And I am allergic to the by products of fermentation. But apparently the fish delicacy Surströmming is up there with the Ghost Pepper Challenge.

    Have I said how happy I am with being pop culture illiterate? There is just too much human oddity in this world I don’t want to know.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 18:52:00 UTC

  • “Another financial crisis not likely in our lifetime.”– Janet Yellen. You mean

    –“Another financial crisis not likely in our lifetime.”– Janet Yellen.

    You mean another BANKING crisis not likely in our lifetime. I think we’re all pretty confident that the ponzi scheme of western fiat currencies is going to collapse in our lifetime. In fact, shortly.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 17:30:00 UTC

  • “To report not on facts, but instead on narratives that yield high ratings, is e

    “To report not on facts, but instead on narratives that yield high ratings, is exactly the definition of fake news,” said James O’Keefe. “We said we are going after the media, and there is a lot more to come.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 17:28:00 UTC

  • MY VIEW OF TRANSCENDENCE: TRANSCENDENCE IN FACT —” high trust methods of scien

    MY VIEW OF TRANSCENDENCE: TRANSCENDENCE IN FACT

    —” high trust methods of scientific testimony “—

    Well yes, you are correctly defining my objective.

    How about my version of transcendence, a higher plane of existence, and a higher experience, and ‘godhood’, is one different from the synthetic(drugs), the submissive(divine), the unburdened(occult) the immune(buddhist), and the real(stoic) and that is agency(power/reason): transcendent in fact in the next, not pretense of transcendence in the present.

    So lets say that of the experiences of transcendence I am proposing an additional way. and that it is the only way that is not an illusion in the present, but an achievable fact in the future.

    If I work very hard I can reach a certain state – a state which all other specialists in the technique describe and pursue. A frictionless state of experience where we are free of the frailty of our reason. the question is, which experiences do you seek to free the base of the reptile? the social of the pack? the intelligence of the human? And do you seek freedom FROM something, or freedom of limitations to do something. Do you seek exit or agency?

    I understand what Gautama Buddha was looking for. I can understand what the most disciplined and pious are looking for. I can understand what the lost-lamenting catholics are looking for. I can understand what the german idealists are looking for.

    But there are good ideas and bad ideas, there are good gods and bad gods, and good means of transcendence bad means of transcendence, because those gods and those means of transcendence either produce transcendence by agency or not. And those that do not are no different from shooting heroin. They provide the feeling without the achievement.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 17:05:00 UTC

  • you know when a bunch of chicks get together and talk about he said she said? th

    you know when a bunch of chicks get together and talk about he said she said? then another group says the same thing but saying its right or wrong but simply give their feelings about it? then another group says ‘well if everyone did that” (the categorical imperative). And then another group says ‘well, you know, we tried that in 1950s”. And then another group says ‘well, statistically it looks like this’. And then another group says “well, this is the set of options available to them at the time, and this is what their incentives were so that is what they chose because they had only those choices”.

    That’s what I mean by arguing by moral intuition.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 12:44:00 UTC