Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • SCRAMBLED TEXT Unfortunately, while skilled readers can read scrambled text easi

    SCRAMBLED TEXT

    Unfortunately, while skilled readers can read scrambled text easily, this ability, can develop into a weakness. In my case, I often cannot actually ‘see’ scrambled words, misspellings, or even the letters present on the page themselves – even if I attempt to, or even if I read backwards. In most cases I ‘see’ paragraphs, or sets of paragraphs ‘whole’ just as most people see words ‘whole’ rather than as collections of words or sequences of letters. ‘Scanning’ has become the only kind of reading I’m capable of. Novels have lost their emotional appeal.

    INTERESTING TIDBIT

    Rawlinson’s paper was not accepted originally, despite his having used fairly good mathematics and evidence behind it, it has become a prominent feature of cognitive psychology.

    http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/Cmabrigde/rawlinson/

    NICK CARR TAKES IT FURTHER

    Nick’s Pulitzer Prize Candidate on our transformation from readers to scanners.

    http://www.nicholascarr.com/?page_id=16

    MY ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS

    Is that ‘reading’, like listening to a narrative, suspends disbelief (criticism) and creates the ability to program one another through narratives (myths). While simple pattern recognition from scanning lots of similar arguments is much closer to using judgement. So I am not sure that ‘scanning’ isn’t a superior technique for humans to make use of. Our problem was low information density, and we seem to have solved it. If we have extremely high information density, we can make far more judgements by intuitive pattern recognition (which is very good) and far fewer through our (very frail) reason. And even better, we are less subject to being victims of suspension of disbelief from the narrative.

    We will be less victims of additional lies like monotheism, pseudoscience and postmodernism.

    (Thank you as always for your assistance Johannes Meixner)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 03:54:00 UTC

  • INTELLECTUALS : GOSSIPERS —“Intellectuals are a social class in a position to

    INTELLECTUALS : GOSSIPERS

    —“Intellectuals are a social class in a position to critique societal matters for which they are not directly responsible and to advocate for the interests of other classes.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 03:08:00 UTC

  • Your next startup… Uber meets Hummer, complete with para-mil drivers

    Your next startup… Uber meets Hummer, complete with para-mil drivers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 19:30:00 UTC

  • “Progressivism wears the religions it has devoured like a monster that dresses i

    –“Progressivism wears the religions it has devoured like a monster that dresses itself in the skins of people it has eaten. It has consumed Judaism, Christianity, and most of Islam, though the worst and most harmful religion, Islam, still lives and is fighting back.”— Jim

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 06:39:00 UTC

  • I HAVE IT RIGHT Just going over Bruce Caldwell’s work on Praxeology and feeling

    I HAVE IT RIGHT

    Just going over Bruce Caldwell’s work on Praxeology and feeling very confident. Time to go see him this year. As far as I know I have rescued praxeology from the pseudoscientific fringe. Praxeology is a failed attempt at economic intuitionism / operationalism, and all sciences are consistent, and operationalism is an extension of (or as Ayelam Valentine Agaliba says, consistent with) falsification. All knowledge is theoretical. The means by which we imagine theories is irrelevant, and their survival of criticism is why they are warrantable (true). Science, if we add in both cost and morality (which haven’t been necessary for the physical sciences) is then the moral discipline of speaking truthfully, and philosophy, science, and morality are consistent and complete (synonyms). As such law, when requiring the full suite of scientific criticisms:

    And there is but one universal moral principle:

    (a) truthfully stated

    ….(i) internally consistent (logically tested)

    ….(ii) externally correspondent (evidentially tested as meaningfully predictive and/or explicative)

    ….(iii) existentially possible (operationally defined)

    ….(iiii) falsifiable and falsified (negatively tested)

    ….(v) fully informed (complete)

    (c) productive

    (d) warrantied

    (e) voluntary exchange

    (f) free of negative externality

    Outstanding issues:

    1) “calculability”: the prohibition on pooling and laundering, is the monetary equivalent of the prohibition on loading and framing. In my current conception this is

    included in operational definitions, but I think I must address numbers, money and prices specifically in order to prohibit political ‘discretion’ and ‘general funds’.

    2) Writing it out as legal construction rather than philosophy.

    Then it’s on to work on institutions. And I can leave ‘Truth’ and ‘Austrian Econ’ behind me.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 05:22:00 UTC

  • DOESN’T BUY POSITIVE RIGHTS EITHER (positive rights are an idiot-test) It doesn’

    http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/blog/post/an-interview-with-john-searleSEARLE DOESN’T BUY POSITIVE RIGHTS EITHER

    (positive rights are an idiot-test)

    It doesn’t occur to him (or anyone else) that all non-positive human rights in the charter are expressions of property rights. (sigh).

    But that said. Positive rights constitute an idiot test. Its just one of those things. If you advocate for positive rights, you’re an idiot. Even if you advocate positive property rights. You’re just an idiot. You are a well intentioned idiot. But you are an idiot none the less.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 04:51:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://bit.ly/1vuJdlO

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 04:43:00 UTC

  • QUESTION OF THE DAY What is the difference between a recipe and a theory?

    QUESTION OF THE DAY

    What is the difference between a recipe and a theory?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 03:22:00 UTC

  • THE REFORMATION OF WESTERN THOUGHT Science as we understand it is an attempt to

    THE REFORMATION OF WESTERN THOUGHT

    Science as we understand it is an attempt to create a discipline of truthful speech.

    Science as we understand it does not ‘recognize’ this attribute of science.

    Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call costs.

    Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call moral.

    Science as we understand it can be extended to include those properties we call costs and morality.

    Science as we understand it can then be restated as the discipline of constructing moral truthful speech.

    Science then is identical to epistemology in philosophy, and philosophy en toto as a discipline is begun, as its first purpose, with ethics (morality), not metaphysics.

    Law can now be scientifically constructed.

    Truth, science, law, morality are now identical.

    All else currently masquerading as philosophy, is no longer categorizable as philosophy, but as theology, psychology, or deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 02:57:00 UTC

  • THE REFORMATION OF WESTERN THOUGHT Science as we understand it is an attempt to

    THE REFORMATION OF WESTERN THOUGHT

    Science as we understand it is an attempt to create a discipline of truthful speech.

    Science as we understand it does not ‘recognize’ this attribute of science.

    Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call costs.

    Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call moral.

    Science as we understand it can be extended to include those properties we call costs and morality.

    Science as we understand it can then be restated as the discipline of constructing moral truthful speech.

    Science then is identical to epistemology in philosophy, and philosophy en toto as a discipline is begun, as its first purpose, with ethics (morality), not metaphysics.

    Law can now be scientifically constructed.

    Truth, science, law, morality are now identical.

    All else currently masquerading as philosophy, is no longer categorizable as philosophy, but as theology, psychology, or deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-27 02:56:00 UTC