Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “Liberty will win because it is the most robust sort of authoritarianism.”— El

    —“Liberty will win because it is the most robust sort of authoritarianism.”—

    Eli on a roll today. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 15:09:00 UTC

  • OVERSING TODAY Well, I went through my original designs today to look at the rem

    OVERSING TODAY

    Well, I went through my original designs today to look at the remaining scope of work. And … I’m not happy about what I found. lol. Everything is just partway done. And while the framework of the app is there, the amount of work left is just frustratingly large. Yes, I don’t include Commissions, Career Development, Sales, Recruiting, in v1. But if we just look finishing off all the existing features, it’s still a truckload of work. Sure, yes, enhancing features is a lot easier than inventing them.

    But it’s still a lot of work. 🙁

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 13:00:00 UTC

  • Should I change how I talk about operationalism? I suppose emphasizing an existe

    Should I change how I talk about operationalism? I suppose emphasizing an existence proof is easier on the brain? Mathematical, logical, and existence proofs? Is that easier to understand than getting lost?

    I dunno. I’m going home and watch netflix lol.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 12:57:00 UTC

  • KNOWING IS AN EXPERIENCE NOT AN ACTION Knowing is an experience. Constructing an

    KNOWING IS AN EXPERIENCE NOT AN ACTION

    Knowing is an experience. Constructing an existence, logical, or mathematical, proof is an action. We can demonstrate them. That is not to say that they are true, it is to say that they are proofs. If we have constructed proofs, we may err, but it is very hard to lie. And even if one does, err, we need not hold him accountable for his error.

    Speaking truthfully, constructing a proof, and possessing the ultimate truth are very different things. I can however speak truthfully, and I can construct an existence proof, and that is the most that I can do. I can know those things even if I cannot know if I possess the truth. So what does that do for me? I doesn’t tell me anything about whether I possess the ultimate truth, but it does allow me to speak truthfully to the best of my ability – and that is all that we can ask of anyone. Because it is all that is possible for anyone.

    Conversely, we must ask it of anyone who seeks to place an argument into the commons the result of which would subject others to harm.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 12:55:00 UTC

  • “CR does not assert that we cannot possess the truth”— That too is a platonic

    —“CR does not assert that we cannot possess the truth”—

    That too is a platonic statement. So I must act as though I never possess it, correct? If we cannot know we have it, then we cannot act as if we have it. “knowing” is an experience, not an action.

    I think I could make a career out of making that single point….. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 12:55:00 UTC

  • HELP REQUEST : MOST DISHONEST NATIONS DATA There is some data floating around fr

    HELP REQUEST : MOST DISHONEST NATIONS DATA

    There is some data floating around from the hotel industry that tracks thefts by country of origin. Nigerians and Chinese are the worse, Danish the best. Ironically, Canadians are pretty bad, as are brits. (Brit culture ‘knicking’ is a bad habit.)

    If anyone knows where I can get this data, can you let me know? THanks

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 12:32:00 UTC

  • CURT, WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING ‘TRUTH’ IS NOT EXTANT? (from CR discussion) Well, I

    CURT, WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING ‘TRUTH’ IS NOT EXTANT?

    (from CR discussion)

    Well, I have very consistently argued that platonic ‘ultimate’ truth is not extant, which is exactly what CR says: I can never possess it. (this may not be true at some point in the future but it is now, since we cannot reduce the universe to first principles as yet). Once we have reduced the universe to first principles It becomes difficult to understand how that would not be the most parsimonious truth, just as voluntary exchange is the most parsimonious ethical truth.

    So popper defines truth … as in-extant. I am just agreeing with you all because I see no way of reconciling performative truth with absolute truth other than my oft-repeated argument that it is possible to produce many truthful statements(true), none of which are complete(ultimate truth). So I’ve had to stick with truthfulness and ultimate truth as a means of not fighting a linguistic argument over habituated semantics.

    As far as I know I am correct in making both arguments, even if the argument that I can’t ‘sell’ is the accurate one. Platonic truth is a moral, not necessary or logical constraint. Whereas performative truth, always open to revision, offered to the market as products for consumption is probably the most accurate version of truth I or anyone else, has been able to construct, for non-formal languages. (which is something I think some of people in this group don’t understand the meaning of.)

    (And I have kind of been fussing with this problem for a year now. It’s freakin’ killing me. no wonder so much ink has been spent on it.)

    So again, I can go either way with it, and I suspect that in my book I will answer it correctly first, then say why it is so culturally impossible to change platonic truth, and then simply surrender to the dichotomy of using performative truthfulness, and platonic truth.

    “Cause if I can’t seem to even get one of you guys to at least see it, then I kind of think the only people who will, are going to be specialists. ie: a handful of people. So the best solution is to address both audiences. That way I get the specialists with the accurate version and the passionately interested with the utilitarian version.

    I mean, I bet I could have this conversation with, say, Dennett or Searle if I explained the reason for it, and and I don’t think it would be very hard. Eh… most of the top 100 would be pretty easy. They might not like my application but I doubt they would disagree with my logic.

    Thanks.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 12:22:00 UTC

  • WE CAN PREVENT LIES PRETTY EASILY IF THE NORMATIVE COMMONS IS COMMON PROPERTY. S

    WE CAN PREVENT LIES PRETTY EASILY IF THE NORMATIVE COMMONS IS COMMON PROPERTY.

    So libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you, I ‘m sure. So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art, all of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in politics law and commerce.

    It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons?

    Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position).

    Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull.

    Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences?

    THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 10:32:00 UTC

  • “The condition of prosperity is determined by the velocity of exchange which is

    —“The condition of prosperity is determined by the velocity of exchange which is determined by trust which is determined by truth.”—-

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 10:30:00 UTC

  • OPERATIONALISM IS A TEST OF TRUTH TELLING, NOT OF THE TRUTH OF THE THEORY. 😉 (p

    OPERATIONALISM IS A TEST OF TRUTH TELLING, NOT OF THE TRUTH OF THE THEORY. 😉

    (possibly the latter bit is profound)

    From my notes….

    –“An operational definition is produced by defining a process of operationalization and recording the results of operating that process; in order to define a variable, term, or object in terms of a set of tests needed to determine its existence, duration, and quantity or quality. Operational definitions define changes in state as those operations necessary to change state; define unobservable entities concretely in terms of the physical and mental operations used to measure them; and ensures that the definition of each observable and unobservable entity has been uniquely identified with the instrumentation used to define it. Just as the operational naming of numbers via positional numbering gives a unique name to every number, this process of operationalization gives a unique name to an extant entity consisting of the definition for that step, rather than consisting of an analogy that approximates it in some form or other. Operationalism is a process of granting unique names.”–

    This ensures that we are discussing names of extant entities rather than allegories, functions, experiences, or imaginary projections.

    Operationalism is not a truth test, it is a test of truth telling.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 08:35:00 UTC