Mar 8, 2020, 12:44 PM
—“I absolutely love the format and the structure of these posts. Propertarianism is no longer a “philosophy” – It’s software code. P is the programming language of natural law. Takes a while to hack it, but seems to help to think of it as code.” —James Dmitro Makienko
Yep. P Is “algorithmic Natural Law” I love when people ‘get it’
Mar 8, 2020, 12:44 PM
—“I absolutely love the format and the structure of these posts. Propertarianism is no longer a “philosophy” – It’s software code. P is the programming language of natural law. Takes a while to hack it, but seems to help to think of it as code.” —James Dmitro Makienko
Yep. P Is “algorithmic Natural Law” I love when people ‘get it’
Mar 8, 2020, 12:46 PM By M. Makienko Post pogrom then post war immigration of certain intellectuals – Marxist, socialist, cultural marxist, postmodernist and feminist philosophies pushed through marketing, media, Hollywood academia, persecution & rallying in the American psychological association, destroyed the patriarchy, a system where female cognition was suppressed in favor of logic, reason, and merit for the sake of giving fighting age men something to be loyal to fight for. To further demoralize fighting age men, feminist law-fare created a divorce-rape system and porn industry designed at weakening the family unit and military morale of fighting age men. All this subversion seems to be targeting the military morale of fighting age men to keep them weak, and today especially you cannot buy makeup in a non immigrant location without horrifically ugly boys wearing makeup in a way designed to maximize repulsion of male cognates. Eric Danelaw there is deliberate destruction by design to reduce the military morale of fighting age men. Observe Putin with his military expansionist agenda bans a lot of these things in Russia, and works to flatter those men will lose their lives for his silly wars instead of women who are worse fighters.
Mar 8, 2020, 12:46 PM By M. Makienko Post pogrom then post war immigration of certain intellectuals – Marxist, socialist, cultural marxist, postmodernist and feminist philosophies pushed through marketing, media, Hollywood academia, persecution & rallying in the American psychological association, destroyed the patriarchy, a system where female cognition was suppressed in favor of logic, reason, and merit for the sake of giving fighting age men something to be loyal to fight for. To further demoralize fighting age men, feminist law-fare created a divorce-rape system and porn industry designed at weakening the family unit and military morale of fighting age men. All this subversion seems to be targeting the military morale of fighting age men to keep them weak, and today especially you cannot buy makeup in a non immigrant location without horrifically ugly boys wearing makeup in a way designed to maximize repulsion of male cognates. Eric Danelaw there is deliberate destruction by design to reduce the military morale of fighting age men. Observe Putin with his military expansionist agenda bans a lot of these things in Russia, and works to flatter those men will lose their lives for his silly wars instead of women who are worse fighters.
Mar 8, 2020, 1:34 PM Pot affects the commons for certain, and we still don’t know whether it’s good or not, and how to judge it. It decreases awareness, aggression, agency, and reproduction. Combined with pornography and continuous sedation by entertainment produces detachment on a scale not seen since the opium wars. That said we are currently running an experiment in self sedation that appears to perform the same function as Soma without state intervention. If it makes people tolerate modernity so that they can continue to be ruled, exploited, displaced, replaced, and conquered, then it will have done what we predicted it would. If not for democracy I would welcome it because it provides mindfulness and a docile underclass and working class population that all rulers seek.
Mar 8, 2020, 1:34 PM Pot affects the commons for certain, and we still don’t know whether it’s good or not, and how to judge it. It decreases awareness, aggression, agency, and reproduction. Combined with pornography and continuous sedation by entertainment produces detachment on a scale not seen since the opium wars. That said we are currently running an experiment in self sedation that appears to perform the same function as Soma without state intervention. If it makes people tolerate modernity so that they can continue to be ruled, exploited, displaced, replaced, and conquered, then it will have done what we predicted it would. If not for democracy I would welcome it because it provides mindfulness and a docile underclass and working class population that all rulers seek.
Mar 8, 2020, 1:54 PM No I don’t pay attention. Langan crosses the border into woo woo. I’ve addressed his work elsewhere. I’ve commented there a few times. But, like I said, over 145 it is not clear that there is any substantial benefit without worse side effects, except in the purely physical or mathematical disciplines where intuition no longer can bias a decision across the border from true (consistent) into meaningful, preferable, or good (desirable). Over 130 the only difference is how long you have to work to get it, and how innovative you might be. Over 145 we see some benefit in mathematics and the hard sciences dependent upon mathematics. Over 160 still isn’t testable in any sense of the word, and all value I’ve seen is merely verbal, with whacky factor (think chomsky) increasing rapidly. In general it is almost impossible to communicate across two standard deviations (30pts). I can tell when people have a higher iq than I do by their verbal facility on one side or the patterns they identify and work with on the other. I know my weakness and always have, and it’s short term memory, which is why I do better at pattern recognition and iterative synthesis than chess and mathematics. Conversely, I will see a pattern and I will discover its cause, no matter what information I look at. I didn’t go into physics because I once I understood the wave particle duality in high school I understood it was a problem only money could solve. I didn’t go into math because I saw it as puzzles not problems and autistics need to be cautious about getting addicted to puzzles. I went into technology because I thought it would be possible to produce artificial intelligence. By the early 80’s I realized it was a hardware problem and required vast investment to make progress although the ideas I formed during that time are still not used anywhere other than my work in the grammars and ethics within P-Law. I used the market opportunity to make money at tech, and then turned my attention to economics and politics which did not require massive capital investment – just hard work and time. When I could retire early to work on the problem full time I did. My only concern at this point is that my age is increasing faster than I am completing the project. In retrospect I had to invent P in order to talk to normal people. Which is why so many other men like me are attracted to it. But without something like P, if you’re not neurotypical, you are somewhat a prisoner in your own head, and limited by that prison to what you can influence. I was. I’m not. but I also have more ‘fight’ than any ten other men. Which is what you need to make it as an entrepreneur.
Mar 8, 2020, 1:54 PM No I don’t pay attention. Langan crosses the border into woo woo. I’ve addressed his work elsewhere. I’ve commented there a few times. But, like I said, over 145 it is not clear that there is any substantial benefit without worse side effects, except in the purely physical or mathematical disciplines where intuition no longer can bias a decision across the border from true (consistent) into meaningful, preferable, or good (desirable). Over 130 the only difference is how long you have to work to get it, and how innovative you might be. Over 145 we see some benefit in mathematics and the hard sciences dependent upon mathematics. Over 160 still isn’t testable in any sense of the word, and all value I’ve seen is merely verbal, with whacky factor (think chomsky) increasing rapidly. In general it is almost impossible to communicate across two standard deviations (30pts). I can tell when people have a higher iq than I do by their verbal facility on one side or the patterns they identify and work with on the other. I know my weakness and always have, and it’s short term memory, which is why I do better at pattern recognition and iterative synthesis than chess and mathematics. Conversely, I will see a pattern and I will discover its cause, no matter what information I look at. I didn’t go into physics because I once I understood the wave particle duality in high school I understood it was a problem only money could solve. I didn’t go into math because I saw it as puzzles not problems and autistics need to be cautious about getting addicted to puzzles. I went into technology because I thought it would be possible to produce artificial intelligence. By the early 80’s I realized it was a hardware problem and required vast investment to make progress although the ideas I formed during that time are still not used anywhere other than my work in the grammars and ethics within P-Law. I used the market opportunity to make money at tech, and then turned my attention to economics and politics which did not require massive capital investment – just hard work and time. When I could retire early to work on the problem full time I did. My only concern at this point is that my age is increasing faster than I am completing the project. In retrospect I had to invent P in order to talk to normal people. Which is why so many other men like me are attracted to it. But without something like P, if you’re not neurotypical, you are somewhat a prisoner in your own head, and limited by that prison to what you can influence. I was. I’m not. but I also have more ‘fight’ than any ten other men. Which is what you need to make it as an entrepreneur.
Mar 8, 2020, 1:57 PM
—“Greetings, I’d like to know the extent to which propertarianism depends on falsificationism(understood as a concept in the philosophy of science) and as a consequence how it answers the criticisms raised against the notions since the 1950s, notably by Quine in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. Quote illustrating part of the argument: A physicist decides to demonstrate the inaccuracy of a proposition; in order to deduce from this proposition the prediction of a phenomenon and institute the experiment which is to show whether this phenomenon is or is not produced, in order to interpret the results of this experiment and establish that the predicted phenomenon is not produced, he does not confine himself to making use of the proposition in question; he makes use also of a whole group of theories accepted by him as beyond dispute. The prediction of the phenomenon, whose nonproduction is to cut off debate, does not derive from the proposition challenged if taken by itself, but from the proposition at issue joined to that whole group of theories; if the predicted phenomenon is not produced, the only thing the experiment teaches us is that among the propositions used to predict the phenomenon and to establish whether it would be produced, there is at least one error; but where this error lies is just what it does not tell us. ([1914] 1954, 185)”— We would need an example since there is nothing in the above example that is testable. It’s a thought experiment that depends upon contingencies that are themselves dependent upon deductions and presumptions that cannot be tested. In geometry his argument might stand. In physics it’s unlikely to stand. I think you are referring to underdetermination in the scientific method, which makes no sense. The scientific method serves only to tell us whether the speaker has the knowledge to make a truth claim. There is no via-positiva scientific method, only warranty of due diligence that one is testifying to observables, whether physical, logical, or experiential. That was the net result of the 20th century attempt at it. P completes that method in that it solves the problems of psychology and sociology, economics and politics. When we are talking about physics, we are currently at a physical testing limit given the costs of tests. In that sense, very little is testifiable. All we are doing is a lot of mathy trial and error.
Mar 8, 2020, 1:57 PM
—“Greetings, I’d like to know the extent to which propertarianism depends on falsificationism(understood as a concept in the philosophy of science) and as a consequence how it answers the criticisms raised against the notions since the 1950s, notably by Quine in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. Quote illustrating part of the argument: A physicist decides to demonstrate the inaccuracy of a proposition; in order to deduce from this proposition the prediction of a phenomenon and institute the experiment which is to show whether this phenomenon is or is not produced, in order to interpret the results of this experiment and establish that the predicted phenomenon is not produced, he does not confine himself to making use of the proposition in question; he makes use also of a whole group of theories accepted by him as beyond dispute. The prediction of the phenomenon, whose nonproduction is to cut off debate, does not derive from the proposition challenged if taken by itself, but from the proposition at issue joined to that whole group of theories; if the predicted phenomenon is not produced, the only thing the experiment teaches us is that among the propositions used to predict the phenomenon and to establish whether it would be produced, there is at least one error; but where this error lies is just what it does not tell us. ([1914] 1954, 185)”— We would need an example since there is nothing in the above example that is testable. It’s a thought experiment that depends upon contingencies that are themselves dependent upon deductions and presumptions that cannot be tested. In geometry his argument might stand. In physics it’s unlikely to stand. I think you are referring to underdetermination in the scientific method, which makes no sense. The scientific method serves only to tell us whether the speaker has the knowledge to make a truth claim. There is no via-positiva scientific method, only warranty of due diligence that one is testifying to observables, whether physical, logical, or experiential. That was the net result of the 20th century attempt at it. P completes that method in that it solves the problems of psychology and sociology, economics and politics. When we are talking about physics, we are currently at a physical testing limit given the costs of tests. In that sense, very little is testifiable. All we are doing is a lot of mathy trial and error.