Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Storey ON RACES AND LIBERTARIANISM

    http://proudboymagazine.com/john-mcafee-richard-lynn-and-libertarian-shame/Rik Storey ON RACES AND LIBERTARIANISM

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 08:03:00 UTC

  • MALE EXPENDABILITY? I may not like the fact that being male makes me expendable.

    MALE EXPENDABILITY?

    I may not like the fact that being male makes me expendable. But I must live with the reality of the division of reproductive labor.

    On the other hand, I am perfectly happy, if not thrilled, to set the terms by which my expendability may be exercised.

    I am willing to kill and die for liberty. I am not willing to suffer the genocide of my people to humor women and the underclasses whose succor is the result of me and my ancestors.

    So I pray you take heed of your assumptions. Lest my brothers and I decide that the method of expending ourselves is your extermination.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 08:01:00 UTC

  • 1) the properties of x equal the properties of x. (identity/tautology) these axi

    1)

    the properties of x equal the properties of x. (identity/tautology)

    these axioms allow me to say x (identity/tautology)

    -and-

    the properties of x are sufficiently equal to the properties of y for the purpose of this argument (ok) (category)

    2)

    These axioms x and those axioms y allow me to say z for the purpose of this argument, becuase that argument depends only on the axioms of x and y.

    -and-

    the properties of known x are shared with the properties of unknown y for the purpose of communicating the meaning of y. (ok) (meaning)

    3)

    given the properties of x and the properties of y, we can deduce z. (deduction) (No, no, no, no….!!!!!)

    – and –

    given the axioms x and the axioms y, we and deduce z. (deduction) (No, no, no, you can only guess z might be possible, however unlikley)

    4)

    given this subset of properties of x and this subset of properties of y, we can deduce z from the properties of x or y that are not a subset of x and y. (conflation) (No No No No…..!!!!)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 07:51:00 UTC

  • THE VERB TO-BE = DEITY SPEECH —“Kellogg and Bourland use the term “Deity mode

    THE VERB TO-BE = DEITY SPEECH

    —“Kellogg and Bourland use the term “Deity mode of speech” to refer to misuse of the verb to be, which “allows even the most ignorant to transform their opinions magically into god-like pronouncements on the nature of things”.—

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 07:38:00 UTC

  • Has anyone added ‘NAXALT’ to a list of cognitive biases yet? Or has the cognitiv

    Has anyone added ‘NAXALT’ to a list of cognitive biases yet? Or has the cognitive bias list by anyone been updated to reflect gender differences in cognitive biases? We have MORAL biases by the genders worked out, but do we have cognitive biases?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 05:04:00 UTC

  • WHAT ARE “VERBAL ILLUSIONS”? ENDING THE POLLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EQUIVAL

    WHAT ARE “VERBAL ILLUSIONS”?

    ENDING THE POLLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EQUIVALENT OF OPTICAL ILLUSIONS

    (important) (I figured out how to talk about suggestion)

    The pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be”: creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”.

    So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures.

    The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself.

    We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are suggestive shortcuts.

    But when this shortcut is combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution.

    In other words, it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same trick that occurs with optical illusions. Both optical illusions and verbal illusions are created by the same means of suggestion: disinformation or partial information constructed to force intuitionistic substitution.

    This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse.

    Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man.

    It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy.

    Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 05:01:00 UTC

  • DEAR FUTURE MOTHERS 1) you have more energy when you are young. 2) your body wil

    DEAR FUTURE MOTHERS

    1) you have more energy when you are young.

    2) your body will recover faster and better when you are young.

    3) you will accumulate less debt when you’re young.

    4) yes you are wiser when you are older.

    5) evidence is that you’re more likely to be wrong for that reason

    6) you don’t have to teach kids anything, you need to have energy to pay attention to them.

    Don’t confuse your own selfishness with doing better for your kids. You can’t. The data is in. No matter what you do, you cannot make your child ‘better’ than if you just pay attention to them, and spend time with them.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 04:56:00 UTC

  • PROGRAMMING PROVIDES THE CURRENT LOGIC OF OPERATIONALISM – YET WE CAN EXTEND IT.

    PROGRAMMING PROVIDES THE CURRENT LOGIC OF OPERATIONALISM – YET WE CAN EXTEND IT.

    Programming is as important an innovation in thought as is empiricism. Because while empiricism is but correspondent and logic is a but question of sets, programming is operational (existential).

    I think the act of creating databases is about as close to philosophizing as you can come, but it involves the same problem as logic: as practiced by the discipline its logical but non-operational, and often non-correspondent.

    When you combine user interfaces(human-reality), programming (operations), and databases (sets/logic), where the data structures must correspond to real world entities (empiricism), then you have covered the entire conceptual spectrum.

    If we combine the correspondent, logical, and operational, we have everything but the moral. If we were to add full accounting of all transactions (full capital accounting that is: under property in toto) we would essentially create the entire spectrum of dimensions necessary for cognition.

    My view is that while the blockchain method is currently too weak for this purpose, that the general theory of duplicated recursive competing ledgers provides the full accounting of TITLES (changes in ownership), and that local databases can take care of local accounting (local measures of local capital), then we would have sufficient dimensional information to produce meaningful artificial intelligences bound by the same limits as we are.

    But regardless of what we do with programming itself, my objective is to teach people that the sensation of teaching a computer but having the reaction “well it should know that’s what I meant!” vs what you told it to do are two different things. And that this ‘gap’ is solved by training teh mind to think operatoinally – existentially?

    Why? Because just as empiricism taught us that the information we wishted to be contained in our words was not in fact there, programming or in broader terms ‘operationalism’ teaches us how little we actually know.

    In other words, it teaches us humility and skepticism in our own thoughts. Or conversely, it teaches us how to test for error and deceit in others.

    Is this an additional burden? Of course it is. So was scientific knowledge. So was literacy. So was numeracy. So was law and order. These are all costs. But they are not sunk costs. They are investments we make. And the investments in truth telling are always the BEST investments man has EVER made.

    (Good luck trying to argue otherwise)

    My strategy is to require law be written programmatically (operationally) even more so than today. Strictly constructed by the same means. This will produce an even more readable body of law, and one that can be accumulated technologically in future systems other than the human mind.

    Law is very close to programming now. But we do not have all the requirements in law that are necessary for the defense of the informational commons.

    If we do that, then law will be dimensionally complete (as far as I can tell). And we will be able to hold the liars at bay.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 04:45:00 UTC

  • WTF DO YOU THINK I’M DOING? (THE THESIS OF THE BOOK) (worth repeating) —“Curt!

    WTF DO YOU THINK I’M DOING? (THE THESIS OF THE BOOK)

    (worth repeating)

    —“Curt! Write a book on this!.”—

    lol…. WTF do you think I am doing? 🙂

    I don’t write this sh_t for my own entertainment. 🙂

    Anyway, this is the general thesis of the book: The Law of Nature.

    We invented sovereignty, and from that we developed western civilization as an extension. As we did so we learned to profit from ‘moral’ rule as a further demonstration of heroism (excellence). This sovereign network of industries vs totalitarian manufacturing plant just ‘calculates’ faster than all other possible human orders, because it produces the fewest friction, and the greatest opportunity to take risks.

    So we evolved faster than the rest every time we restore our sovereignty, and we slow when we remove it – just like everyone else.

    Time to restore our sovereignty.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 04:24:00 UTC

  • MYTHICAL EXTREMES, DEMONSTRATED REGULARITIES Let me repeat that so that it doesn

    MYTHICAL EXTREMES, DEMONSTRATED REGULARITIES

    Let me repeat that so that it doesn’t get lost: we tell stories of great achievement because it is the only possible way of conveying heroism: desirable action at the extremes. We teach the valuable exceptions that produce the valuable rewards for high risk. We do not tell people stories of regularities that are in evidence around us every day. This is why history consists of irregularities (innovations), and why existence consists of regularities (productions). Men innovate(disrupt) through extremes and women operate (produce generations) through regularities. And we have evolved such that our gender’s abilities serve the needs.

    If you look at the 20th century. By all possible measures, women are failing at their duties. At present, it might also be that men are – if we let ourselves be conquered in order to please the folly of our women.

    We are not equal. Like an army we must all do our jobs if we are to survive.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 04:17:00 UTC