Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Ivan Tries and Fails – Hot to Spot a Sophist

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:42 AM (people not grasping closure) P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible) thought. … Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scientific.

    —“Let’s suppose all that is true, then how could you make a case for “P-law” in anything but P-law? The fact that you consistently engage in bog-standard rhetoric to “prove” P-law puts the lie to the whole thing.”—Ivan the Above Average @AboveIvan

    How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic? The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’. You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail. You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven’t taken the time to fully entrap you in demonstrating it. The only way to falsify P is to run cases: tests. All you will discover is undecidability (testimony), where you find falsehood (inference). The fact that you’re still stuck in the early 20th c because philosophy was a dead end for truth, and limited to choice (or deceit) is simply that you’ve overinvested in a malinvestment. Reformation is extremely expensive. And humans protect investments (loss aversion). Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable one cannot make a truth claim. For a statement to be testifiable requires it survive the tests of all dimensions, because the only closure available is falsification of all dimensions. Sorry. Just is.

  • Categories of The Sciences

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:45 AM BTW: In “SCIENCES: 1. Formal(Logics: logic, mathematics, algorithmic, operational). 2. Physical (the laws of nature). 3. Psychological (cognitive science), and 4. Social (Social science: economics, law, politics, group strategy).” Psychology is either ignored (as a pseudoscience) or included as cognitive science in physical science. I separate formal, physical, individual, and social sciences.

  • Categories of The Sciences

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:45 AM BTW: In “SCIENCES: 1. Formal(Logics: logic, mathematics, algorithmic, operational). 2. Physical (the laws of nature). 3. Psychological (cognitive science), and 4. Social (Social science: economics, law, politics, group strategy).” Psychology is either ignored (as a pseudoscience) or included as cognitive science in physical science. I separate formal, physical, individual, and social sciences.

  • Freud vs Jung vs Cognitive Science

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:45 AM by Tim Abbott

    —“Tim Abbott : What’s your position on Freud vs Jung, vs Cog Sci?”—CD

    Freud’s main concepts of the mind were non-original, but innovations of prior Greek concepts. The state of human affairs from the Freudian vision are outright lies. I find more utility in Jung. Jungian concepts of an evolving mind and a shared reality that constantly revealing itself via symbols. Cognitive science is a focus on the material world and being able to overcome emotional defects of the mind in order to think in a more rational way once again. I believe in the duality of nature. Materialism and symbolism, and through symbolism the material world can be manipulated. It’s a work in progress. 😐 === (CD: Tim is our go-to guy for psychology)

  • Freud vs Jung vs Cognitive Science

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:45 AM by Tim Abbott

    —“Tim Abbott : What’s your position on Freud vs Jung, vs Cog Sci?”—CD

    Freud’s main concepts of the mind were non-original, but innovations of prior Greek concepts. The state of human affairs from the Freudian vision are outright lies. I find more utility in Jung. Jungian concepts of an evolving mind and a shared reality that constantly revealing itself via symbols. Cognitive science is a focus on the material world and being able to overcome emotional defects of the mind in order to think in a more rational way once again. I believe in the duality of nature. Materialism and symbolism, and through symbolism the material world can be manipulated. It’s a work in progress. 😐 === (CD: Tim is our go-to guy for psychology)

  • Propertarianism is the best case for individualism

    Mar 27, 2020, 11:36 AM

    —“Propertarianism is the best case for individualism as it establishes the costs. Sovereignty requires agency requires the aptitude to incur and manage the costs.”—Rick Tavi

    (CD: Well done. I set out to restore ability, responsibility, un-substitutability, and cost to search for Freedom and Liberty by permission at other’s discretion – resulting in creation of Sovereignty in fact by our decision. I did so because when working on Hoppe I understood argumentation ethics were nonsense. Violence, like boycott, is never, ever, ever off the political table.)

  • Propertarianism is the best case for individualism

    Mar 27, 2020, 11:36 AM

    —“Propertarianism is the best case for individualism as it establishes the costs. Sovereignty requires agency requires the aptitude to incur and manage the costs.”—Rick Tavi

    (CD: Well done. I set out to restore ability, responsibility, un-substitutability, and cost to search for Freedom and Liberty by permission at other’s discretion – resulting in creation of Sovereignty in fact by our decision. I did so because when working on Hoppe I understood argumentation ethics were nonsense. Violence, like boycott, is never, ever, ever off the political table.)

  • Libertarians

    Mar 27, 2020, 11:38 AM

    —“Libertarians don’t do skin in the game – they play fantasy league football for ideology.”—Gary Knight

    (Gary always up-man’s everyone else. It’s a good thing.)

  • Libertarians

    Mar 27, 2020, 11:38 AM

    —“Libertarians don’t do skin in the game – they play fantasy league football for ideology.”—Gary Knight

    (Gary always up-man’s everyone else. It’s a good thing.)

  • Jung’s Unfinished Project

    Mar 27, 2020, 12:08 PM by Andrew M Gilmour

    Jung approached consciousness empirically; like someone attempting to reverse engineer it. He looked at the outputs (myth, religion and art) and worked backwards. Unfortunately his fixation on illnesses limited the scope of his discoveries. There was the potential for him to create a complete model of the psyche. A western equivalent of the Upanishads or Kabbalah.