Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • sentience > awareness > cognition > language > reason > logic > mathematics > op

    sentience > awareness > cognition > language > reason > logic > mathematics > operations.

    I am not sure anyone says language is required for cognition. Only that as we progress from cognition through language through reason etc we are increasingly distancing ourselves from sympathetic tests and moving towards entirely analytic tests. Most of this progression is limited by the ability to hold a concept (context) in short term memory (focus), independently of external stimuli (impulse), long enough to iterate through opportunities (search memory, find patterns, wayfind, then falsify (search for negative consequences.).

    IMHO: language is not necessary, only visualization or perhaps better said, ‘experiential revisitation” which we can observe and judge.

    The problem is that without language one cannot develop complex narratives, write them down, or use symbols. But that’s a qualification on top of the original claim: it’s probably correct to say that cognition does not require language, only that language improves our cognitive ability and is so (incredibly) valuable as a competitive technology that there is greater consequence to verbal (SYMBOLIC is what it means), cognition than EXPERIENTIAL cognition. And speech appears to be the gateway humans found for moving from experiential cognition to symbolic cognition.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-16 10:06:00 UTC

  • (for super-geeks)(math vs science)(unification of disciplines)(universal epistem

    (for super-geeks)(math vs science)(unification of disciplines)(universal epistemological method) (human scale)

    (read the comments with Davin and I.)

    MATH VS SCIENCE?

    Mathematics is not a science (theoretic system of external correspondence) but a logic (axiomatic system of internal consistency).

    We are, almost universally, fooled by the fact that we cannot imagine all consequences of our axiomatic declarations, and equate this to the same phenomenon of our inability to imagine all consequences of our observations of reality. But axiomatic systems are declared (models) and theoretic systems are observed (reality). When our models and reality appear to correspond, we say that the model appears good or true.

    For this reason mathematical (axiomatic systems) do not produce truths (ultimately parsimonious and completely correspondent descriptions of reality) , but proofs of internal consistency. Theories = True correspondence. Axioms = Proof of internal consistency. Both of which require that we are describing constant relations.

    Until we discover the set of possible operations in the universe (causality or causal particulars) we must content ourselves with descriptions of the consequences of those operations (mathematics), by creating models with which we declare descriptive axioms as a general expression of the unknown causal operations.

    Ergo we can use mathematics to create models of theoretic systems (reality) because axioms express constant relations and the universe operates deterministically (according to a set of rules that produce observably constant relations).

    Science != to Empiricism (that the error of positivism). Instead, identity, logics, empiricism, operations, and morality when tested by limits, full accounting, and parsimony, assist us in removing error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deception from our thoughts, words, and deeds.

    This is why mathematics generally succeeds in representing highly deterministic systems (constant relations of constant categories) but why mathematics fails us in slightly deterministic systems – in particular, heuristic systems (inconstant relations of inconstant categories.)

    Mathematics is an abstraction of operations. A generalization for the expression of observations about which we do not know the operations.

    Science on the other hand ensures that we use categories, sets, mathematical descriptions, empirical correspondence, causal operations, moral reciprocity (in matters of cooperation: social science) and then define limits, test for full accounting, and test for parsimony.

    This process of ensuring is what we call falsification. if a description (theory) can survive all those tests, we can warranty that we have performed due diligence and speak truthfully.

    In other words science provides us with a universal epistemology.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-16 09:45:00 UTC

  • SCREWED AMERICA THE ‘CANCEROUS’ GENERATION

    https://www.amazon.com/Barbarians-Boomers-Immigrants-Screwed-Generation/dp/1541136942/BOOMERS SCREWED AMERICA

    THE ‘CANCEROUS’ GENERATION

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 21:09:00 UTC

  • ARE EMPIRES DETERMINISTIC? Nick Zito: —“I’m sure you have covered this previou

    ARE EMPIRES DETERMINISTIC?

    Nick Zito: —“I’m sure you have covered this previously but isn’t it the case that city states will be amalgamated into empires again and again? History repeats? So whilst we live with empires today, by implementing market gov and creating 1000s of city states we will just be back on the repeat train, no?”—-

    GREAT QUESTION!

    We can form various forms of empires. This list is not exhaustive but the spectrum will serve as the framework for all possible answers.

    1) Military denial (the empire performs no other function than to deny external conquest of any member state. [Greeks]

    2) Commercial denial (the empire also performs the function of standardizing weights, measures, property, contract, and dispute resolution.) [Romans]

    3) Civic denial (the empire also performs the function of standardizing language, rituals, traditions, myths) [Chinese and current western democratic humanism]

    4) Productive Denial (the empire also performs the function of standardizing production or some significant part of it) [communism/authoritarianism/soviet-chinese socialism].

    5) Migratory or movement denials (the empire also performs the function of standardizing or regulating the movement of individuals) [serfdom]

    6) Associative or Reproductive denial (the empire also performs the function of standardizing or regulating associations, reproduction, and family structure). [slavery]

    7) Total denial (the empire also performs the function of total management of the individual independent of his choice) [chattel slavery]

    8) Life denial (the extermination of all life for the purposes of obtaining a territorial monopoly on all future potential).

    So civilizations can form, empires can form, but the question is which type of empires do we permit to form?

    “Bibles” limit a state.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 20:43:00 UTC

  • No one can fight in the sheriffs, militia, military, for you. Fighting is a non-

    No one can fight in the sheriffs, militia, military, for you. Fighting is a non-substitutable good. If for no other reason than you cannot perform restitution for losses incurred. Compensation perhaps. But never restitution. If you cannot perform restitution then the good is not substitutable.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 17:46:00 UTC

  • Evolution makes sense. Evolutionary narrowness can make sense (specialization) E

    Evolution makes sense.

    Evolutionary narrowness can make sense (specialization)

    Evolutionary fragility doesn’t make sense(overspecialization).

    Complex systems (all life) benefit from stress, and develop fragility without stress. Because Lack of stress causes misallocation of resources. (Just try to think of some evolutionary system where this isn’t true).

    Humans can EXPRESS traits (specialize) by selection. We can specialize by selection without mutation or epigenetic variation. We can do so simply by increasing the reproduction of some part of any one or more of our distributions at the expense of some other part of any one or more of our distributions. And as long as the distribution(reproductive inventory) exists, we can change or reverse it.

    But reproductive expression is a slow process, and leaves us vulnerable to shocks (rapid changes) during which we might experience large losses. (fragility).

    Ergo a distribution not optimized for only the market order, but optimized for all possible orders is in fact ‘optimum’. And all attempts to create a single optimum are actually attacks on specialization and adaptation.

    All we can say at this point is that it appears that there is a point at which we succeed at sufficient sexual dimorphism and (maturity) pedomorphism, that further attempts produce negatives (the asian problems at the extreme and the african problem at the other extreme).

    So you might say “for people in my gene pool and in my social class who have these ambitions, at present these might be good pedagogical objectives” What you can’t say is that there exists some perfect, universal, individual ideal. Or at least, you can’t say it except in ignorance.

    We can see a range of social classes (in fact).

    we can see at least three main ruling classes (priestly/public intellectual, remunerative/commercial, and warrior/legal, and reactive/technical, on top of the familial.) And we can see a range of family structures needed for the abilities of different classes. And we see moral codes reflecting the needs of those different classes. We see a range of cognitive abilities that at about every ten points dramatically alters the cost and rate of learning good (>105) or bad (<95). We see depth of sexual maturity and rate of sexual maturity that causes variation in group needs. We see that different groups have been more (whites/asians) successful than others (everyone in the middle) and much more successful than others (equatorial peoples), at culling the size and rates of reproduction of their underclasses. And we can see that these differences accumulate in vastly different quality of life, because they permit vastly different forms of institutions. Hiqh quality high trust institutions are dependent upon reducing the cost of institutional enforcement – the underclasses, if for no other reason than it it is not possible to create a voluntary organization of production (market economy) if the market value of the goods producible by the polity are insufficient to pay for the incentives necessary to organize production voluntarily through a hierarchy of marginal differences in compensation.

    Every institution matters. Like Anna Karinnena’s limited humber of healthy families, or the the planet’s limited number of domesticatable animals, many things must function at once to produce positive ends – and the falure of any one leads to negative ends. Hence the uniqueness of western civilization in ancient and modern worlds. For ancient reasons we ourselves did not grasp, we made a subconsious choice in prehistory that caused us to produce many good things in concert quite my accident (or rather, without intent).

    MONOPOLY IS THE ANTITHESIS OF THAT SUBCONSCIOUS CHOICE. UNIVERSALISM IS A SEMITIC AND IRANIAN VALUE IN REACTION TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

    The west has always practiced the estates of the realm and provided different values for each estate. It is only under the lies of the enlightenment (or perhaps counter-enlightenments) that we used democracy and universalism to destroy that ancient bias.

    Sovereignty.Markets in everything.

    War and law for the aristocracy

    Philosophy and literature for the middle class

    Religion for the workers and the slaves.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 16:00:00 UTC

  • MS. “L” I have three objections to the options above: 1)I reject the premise inh

    MS. “L”

    I have three objections to the options above: 1)I reject the premise inherent in these choices. They are based on the assumption that human nature is all about self-interest. Not only is that a harsh view of human nature, it is also inaccurate. An important characteristic of human nature is gregariousness., and depriving people of the capacity is to associate with others is considered harsh punishment, even torture. That is why the use of isolation cells in prison in the Western world is regulated. So I might cooperate with others because I like associating with others–it’s fun!

    Curt Doolittle

    1) only a woman would say such a thing since it demonstrates the cognitive bias of ‘blindness to the distribution”.

    2) human nature *is* demonstrably entirely driven by self interest and we can find no instances where it is not – not only that, we can’t find it anywhere else in nature either. All cooperation is for self beneficial ends. Even kin selection still is for beneficial ends of one’s genes.

    3) the significant difference between humans and other creatures is that we can imitate one another (model one another), such that we can comprehend intention, and therefore cooperate on intentions. That fact aside, we evolved moral instincts to both encourage cooperation but punish parasitism (free riding). All herd and pack animals are gregarious to the herd/pack. Its just good kin selection.

    4) women must bear the high cost of offspring, are weaker and more vulnerable more often and they and their offspring are even vulnerable to other women so they purchase lots of insurance and they experience this insurance purchase as gregariousness. They do so to the point where when given access to political resources (commons) they attempt to give them away (see the dominance of women in government jobs, and in charity work, and the absence of women in the most competitive of professions). This is all nothing but genetic self interest. If creatures were not self-interested they would be exterminated by evolutionary pressures.

    5) Women lie to themselves largely because they have less agency in the control of their emotions. Men lie to others. But not to themselves. It’s too dangerous for them.

    MS. “L”

    2) The identities attached to the various options are stereotypes, especially the father stereotype.

    Curt Doolittle

    Stereotypes are the MOST ACCURATE measurement in the social sciences. So much so that we can pretty much claim that they are the ONLY accurate measurement in the social sciences.

    Female cognitive bias against stereotypes is driven by the need to believe her children are ‘good’ and ‘worth her investment’ regardless of their worth (or worthlessness). It is also because women who ‘stand out’ are destroyed by other women in the pack. Women work together to ensure the even distribution of resources. They hen-peck competitors to ensure they do not obtain more resources.

    MS. “L”

    3) Option #4, the Libertine option, is not even an option. If Libertine is left alone, L. will not be able to participate in the commercial market. If left alone (let’s say with just the immediate family), L. will not have the education, health or infrastructure necessary to participate in the commercial market. For instance, how many people in Liberia participate in the commercial market versus how many more would participate if education, infrastructure and health care (remember Ebola?) were freely available.

    Curt Doolittle

    This is not true. There are always marginal people on the edge of society. Yet again you’ve demonstrated distribution-blindness.

    Only women do this. Men never do. Unless feminized by a single mother.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 15:21:00 UTC

  • WE CHANGED THE SIGN ON THE PORCH. Greek Version – Reason “let no one inept at ge

    WE CHANGED THE SIGN ON THE PORCH.

    Greek Version – Reason

    “let no one inept at geometry enter”.

    Modern Version – Operationalism

    “It’s pretty hard to enter unless you know how to program”.

    Seems like it anyway.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 14:13:00 UTC

  • FOR PROGRESSIVES TOO. JUST BE HONEST ABOUT IT. —“I like Curt’s work because it

    FOR PROGRESSIVES TOO. JUST BE HONEST ABOUT IT.

    —“I like Curt’s work because it gives to politics a language and a formal logic that are so neutral and simple (well, if you are a bit on the spectrum) that a cooperative and peaceful world looks possible.

    “I dont give a damn, really, about my tribe except that I’m abstractly aware that my survival depends on the survival of my tribe.

    “I recently concluded: I have to be progressively oriented, that was imprinted into my DNA during the first few years of my life. But I don’t have to lie about that. Give me some free stuff, then leave me alone, and I will give some free stuff to you later when my neurotic brain compels me to produce something out of pure boredom.”— Ivan Ilakovac

    My objective was mainly to end the lying of the left and improve the arguments of the right. I don’t care what kind of government you have as long as I can have a separate one that reflects what I want – and so can everyone else.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 14:09:00 UTC

  • I LOVE THE IDEA THAT MY ANCESTORS HELPED PAY FOR MONT ST MICHELLE —“Radulphus

    I LOVE THE IDEA THAT MY ANCESTORS HELPED PAY FOR MONT ST MICHELLE

    —“Radulphus de Dolieta, Testemonio: For forgiveness of misdeeds of himself and his predecessors and successors he grants in the time of William, King of England, to the Monks of St. Michael for the brotherhood and the prayers of St. Michael and the Monks, his servants, all the dues on his lands, etc. [Recorded in original charters in archives of La Manche, Abbey of Mont St. Michael for Benedictine monks in Diocese of Avranche, France, A.D. 1085-1087. ]”—-

    No idea what he did for this. But it happened AFTER he was supposed to be in England.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 14:03:00 UTC