Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “PROPERTY IN TOTO”: THE BASIC IDEA IS VERY SIMPLE (Eli Harman)(important idea) E

    “PROPERTY IN TOTO”: THE BASIC IDEA IS VERY SIMPLE

    (Eli Harman)(important idea)

    Eli Harman: —“The term Curt Doolittle uses is “property in toto” (property in all of its forms.)

    But the basic idea is simple as day. It’s just that property is whatever people demonstrate the willingness and ability to claim and defend as their own, either individually, or in common.

    That could be physical, private, property, or it could be the market value of the same.

    It could be physical, common, property, like a park.

    It could be common, intangible, property, like public order and decency, the integrity of their language, truth in the “marketplace of ideas,” the ancestral gene pool, or something else.

    It could be private but intangible, reputation, intellectual property, honor, etc…”— Eli Harman

    MORE:

    The institution of Property is held in place by competition via judicial competition using natural law. We do not have to advocate for any form or limit to the definition of property in order to limit ‘discretionary rule’ and to retain ‘rule of law’. We merely have to demonstrate that any claim to property was obtained by homesteading, transformation (production), or exchange, without violating the One Law of Natural Law: the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to productive externality.

    This technique is called Via Negativa: we do not define Property per se. We define only what Property is not: that which is claimed as property(control) but obtained by the imposition of costs upon that which others have invested to obtain an interest in.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 20:56:00 UTC

  • (omg. thank god. I can remember nouns. my brain is starting to work again. I hav

    (omg. thank god. I can remember nouns. my brain is starting to work again. I have to work harder at sleeping enough. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 16:47:00 UTC

  • Biological weaponry? What do you think underclass immigration is? No need to coo

    Biological weaponry? What do you think underclass immigration is?

    No need to cook a viral weapon. Humans are the best genetic weapon – just by breeding.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 15:08:00 UTC

  • (Still under the weather. I have a lot of your questions/comments queued. Will t

    (Still under the weather. I have a lot of your questions/comments queued. Will try to answer asap. hugs all. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 13:07:00 UTC

  • TESTIMONIALISM, TRUTH, AND UNCERTAINTY by James Augustus Berens Negative Convexi

    TESTIMONIALISM, TRUTH, AND UNCERTAINTY

    by James Augustus Berens

    Negative Convexity of Information:

    – Dependent variable (y): consequential knowledge

    – Input (x): information

    – Function (f): human cognition

    Justificationism and rationalism only hold when (a) the relationship between (y) and (x) is linear, and (b) when assume the correspondence of (y).

    But, f(x) is nonlinear [negative convexity]: an increase in the input (x) will yield more of (y) until the the limits of the function are approached; after which an increase in the input (x) will yield diminishing returns to scale.

    Because of uncertainty, we cannot identify the optimal input of (x) for the given function. However, we can test* (y) [via negativa] and conclude with a higher degree of certainty if the output is non-correspondent.

    Testing (y) allows us to calibrate our inputs and function to yield higher returns (optimal computation via algorithm).

    Testimonialism—as performed warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, deception and fraud—increases the objectivity of (y) through the reduction of subjective inputs (cognitive bias).

    *Tests (criticism)

    i. identity (category)

    ii. internal consistency (logic)

    iii. external correspondence (explanatory power)

    iv. existential possibility (existence proof)

    v. limits (falsification) (parsimony)

    vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias)

    vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers)

    Ultimately, we can never be fully certain of truth. We can, however, prove possibility (truth candidacy) and incrementally decrease the probability of speaking/testifying falsely.

    That is, we advance knowledge through subtraction (via negativa)—not justification (via positiva).

    (CURT: This is absolutely flawless. Excellent. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 12:17:00 UTC

  • EPISTEMOLOGY AT CIVILIZATIONAL SCALE James Augustus Berens —“The relationship

    EPISTEMOLOGY AT CIVILIZATIONAL SCALE

    James Augustus Berens

    —“The relationship between investment and return on exploration is non-linear (negative-convexity/concavity): we see increases in our ROI up to the vertex of our function, where additional investment begins to yield diminishing returns.

    I was thinking about non-linearities in information, exploration and discovery a few weeks ago:

    1) “During the Age of Discovery, the acquisition of knowledge and territory produced high return to investment ratios. However, given the limits of human perception and cognition and available territory, we’ve observed diminishing returns.

    It is now costly, and highly unlikely, though not impossible, that we can make consequential scientific discoveries that produce the returns observed in the early scientific period. Similarly, humans have populated all habitable areas of planet earth, so territorial expansion is costly and rarely pursued.

    With these two changes we observe a corresponding shift from ‘discovery,’ the low-cost identification and capitalization of opportunities, to scientific criticism (high-cost identification + optimal calculation via negativa) of available, and known choices/opportunities.”***

    And

    2) “Testimonialism, Truth & Uncertainty

    Negative Convexity of Information:

    Dependent variable (y): consequential knowledge

    Input (x): information

    Function (f): human cognition

    Justificationism and rationalism only hold when (a) the relationship between (y) and (x) is linear, and (b) when assume the correspondence of (y).

    But, f(x) is nonlinear [negative convexity]: an increase in the input (x) will yield more of (y) until the the limits of the function are approached; after which an increase in the input (x) will yield diminishing returns to scale.

    Because of uncertainty, we cannot identify the optimal input of (x) for the given function. However, we can test* (y) [via negativa] and conclude with a higher degree of certainty if the output is non-correspondent.

    Testing (y) allows us to calibrate our inputs and function to yield higher returns (optimal computation via algorithm).

    Testimonialism—as performed warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, deception and fraud—increases the objectivity of (y) through the reduction of subjective inputs (cognitive bias).

    *Tests (criticism)

    i. identity (category)

    ii. internal consistency (logic)

    iii. external correspondence (explanatory power)

    iv. existential possibility (existence proof)

    v. limits (falsification) (parsimony)

    vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias)

    vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers)

    Ultimately, we can never be fully certain of truth. We can, however, prove possibility (truth candidacy) and incrementally decrease the probability of speaking/testifying falsely.

    That is, we advance knowledge through subtraction (via negativa)—not justification (via positiva).”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 12:15:00 UTC

  • THE LITERATURES acquisitionism(operationalism) -> … “selective” historical lit

    THE LITERATURES

    acquisitionism(operationalism) ->

    … “selective” historical literature ->

    … … aesthetic moral/philosophical literature ->

    … … … aesthetic religious/theological literature ->

    … … … … aesthetic occult/mythical literature ->

    … … … … … aesthetic dream state ‘stories’.

    I might be able to do the first three but the rest are beyond me. yet we require ALL of these literatures in concert in order to convey ideas to the entire body of people. Why? Because each of us relies on a different intuitionistic combination in order to empathize with the same idea.

    HOW DO WE DO THIS?

    I think it’s most useful if we correctly categorize each form of explanation. As far as I know as long as the ‘science’ holds (any statement is testable under acquisitionism (operationalism/science/truth) then the manner of its communication (and the inspiration provided by that form) is just a matter of ‘speaking in the language of the audience’.

    I can pretty much decompose any of the literatures if I work at it (and have someone explain their experiences/feelings to me). And if we can truth test it, then the method of communication holds.

    What one CANNOT do is perform DEDUCTIONS (argumetns) instead of EXPLANATIONS. In other words, ANY VIA-POSITIVA that survives VIA-NEGATIVA criticism is still ‘true’. But it’s not possible to ARGUE, only EXPLAIN by via-positiva.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 11:38:00 UTC

  • GENERAL RULES OF INTAKE (DEFENSE AGAINST PSEUDOSCIENCE) 1) VIA POSITIVA: If the

    GENERAL RULES OF INTAKE (DEFENSE AGAINST PSEUDOSCIENCE)

    1) VIA POSITIVA: If the consequence of any consumption are negative the consequences will be readily visible to the general public with in a generation.

    2) VIA NEGATIVA: There are no positive consequences of consumption only negative consequences of underconsumption or overconsumption. (you can over-consume or under-consume but you cannot improve state by selective consumption.)

    3) CONTENT IS NOT EQUAL TO STATE: Evidence of change in state is evidence of change in state. Evidence of change in content is not evidence of change in state.

    4) HUMAN SCALE OBSERVATION: (A) The evidence is that there is zero truth to all nutritional(chemical) pseudoscience unless it is visibly perceptible change in individuals in a common distribution. (B) The evidence is that there is nearly perfect truth to ‘stereotypical’ assessments of one another. (Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science.)

    SCIENCE I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN OF:

    1 – Pot decreases sperm count and therefore fertility.

    2 – Pot inhibits the formation of memories.

    3 – Pot causes reduction of neural pathways in development (natal, child, and young adulthood. This does not appear to be the case after reaching maturity.

    4 – Given the use of pot for self-medication, use of pot will correlate with many psychological disorders. This is the result of self-selection not causality.

    5 – Pot *appears* to exacerbate predispositions to depression, psychoses and in particular, schizophrenia – and recent research suggests that depression-schizophrenia is a spectrum of causally related phenomenon as are solipsism-autism, hetero-homosexuality, yet we do not yet know why other than (a) runs in families and (b) hints that it is an in-utero developmental cause.

    POSITIVES

    The positive consequences are those that suppress excitable and obsessive behavior in otherwise normal individuals (non-predisposed).

    COMPARISONS

    The use of marijuana vs alcohol can be compared to the difference between coffee, tobacco, and wine – which appears to have social consequences (coffee being a good one). Alcohol exacerbates opportunities for violence, and alcoholism, while pot produces soporific effects instead and is only a gateway for those predisposed to self-medicating. Tobacco produces calming and reduces hunger, but produces anxiety afterward, and cancer in the long term. The most serious consequences for pot and alcohol use are increasing hunger(hyperconsumption) and danger of operating motor vehicles and power equipment. Pot is currently the most cited cause of accidents under influence. and is 500% increase in risk, where alcohol varies from 300-700% increase in risk, except with younger drivers, where it can exceed 25000% increase in risk. So while alcohol peaks at higher risk, pot begins at slightly higher risk.

    IOW: If you operate on human-power-only when under the influence of pot, and do not have predispositions to mental illness, it’s probably the recreational exit of choice.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 11:27:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 21:44:00 UTC

  • “In the Second World War, Imperial Japan dropped thousands of plague-infested fl

    —“In the Second World War, Imperial Japan dropped thousands of plague-infested fleas on Chinese cities.

    Developed at its covert “Unit 731” biological and chemical warfare facility, these attacks are believed to have killed around 400,000 civilians.

    …

    There are antibiotics available to counter the disease, but they are ineffective if not administered within a day of the onset of symptoms. With most doctors having little experience of the disease, it is unlikely it would be identified before it’s too late.

    And given the symptoms are easily mistaken for that of a common flu, he said it was imperative a vaccine is developed.

    The window for antibiotic treatment is very narrow, so it is usually between 20 – 24 hours after the appearance of the symptoms of the disease. If you delay the treatment then you will still see people dying.

    A HISTORY OF PLAGUE AS A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON

    Given the virality of the plague, history is littered with instances of it being used as a biological weapon.

    Historical accounts from the far east describe it being used by the Mongols, Huns and rampaging Chinese armies to infect adversaries.This involved catapulting infected animals or corpses of plague victims into besieged cities, or dumping them into water supplies to infect enemies’ drinking water.

    During the Second World War, Imperial Japan pioneered warheads filled with disease-ridden rats, mice, clothing and fleas which it dropped on Chinese civilians.The disease had been developed at the so-called “Unit 731” facility in northeast China, which was the site of some of Japan’s most horrendous war crimes. An estimated 250,000 people were subjected to experimentation at the site.

    Following the war, both the US and Russia harnessed the technology – much of which was based on Japanese and German research – to use plague as a weapon.Studies have since revealed the USSR focused on developing “aerosolized” forms of the disease – thereby removing the need for it to be transmitted via infected fleas or animals.And despite being a signatory to a convention banning the development of such weapons, Russia was found to still be creating the weapons as late as the 1990s when former USSR microbiologist Ken Alibek defected to the US.

    The plague is physically transmitted, just like Ebola, so therefore simple quarantine measures are effective. If this scenario was to actually work, then we would have seen epidemic level plaque outbreaks after the dark ages when we learned it was spread by microbe infected rats and fleas. There have not been any of that type of outbreak that wasn’t quickly quarantined.

    “—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 21:43:00 UTC