Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548087791 Timestamp) THE VIA NEGATIVA COST OF THE RELIGION OF THE LAW —“Law by Natural Law of Reciprocity consists as a set of ideas of falsification which do not require belief in, testimony to, or action according to, one or more falsehoods as a cost of inclusion and use, but rather demands that you cannot do this, no matter what, and this requirement acts as the cost for inclusion and use.”—Curtus Maximus (perfect argument)

  • Curt Doolittle wrote on Jo Ol’s timeline.

    (FB 1548026585 Timestamp) So is this a backup account or are you pretending you’re this person?

  • (FB 1548181922 Timestamp) DO I GET A PRIZE FOR BEING BLOCKED BY TALEB? (Stefan M

    (FB 1548181922 Timestamp) DO I GET A PRIZE FOR BEING BLOCKED BY TALEB? (Stefan Molyneux )

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548129337 Timestamp) WHEN THE OPPOSITION DOES YOUR PLANNING FOR YOU —“The NIAC was challenged to think beyond even our most severe power disruptions, imagining an outage that stretches beyond days and weeks to months or years, and affects large swaths of the country. Unlike severe weather disasters, a catastrophic power outage may occur with little or no notice and result from myriad types of scenarios: for example, a sophisticated cyber physical attack resulting in severe physical infrastructure damage; attacks timed to follow and exacerbate a major natural disaster; a large-scale wildfire, earthquake, or geomagnetic event; or a series of attacks or events over a short period of time that compound to create significant physical damage to our nation’s infrastructure. An event of this severity may also be an act of war, requiring a simultaneous military response that further draws upon limited resources. For the purpose of this study, the NIAC focused not on the cause, but rather on the consequences, which are best categorized as severe, widespread, and long-lasting. The type of event contemplated will include not only an extended loss of power, but also a cascading loss of other critical services—drinking water and wastewater, communications, financial services, transportation, fuel, healthcare, and others—which may slow recovery and impede re-energizing the grid. Most importantly, the scale of the event—stretching across states and regions, affecting tens of millions of people—would exceed and exhaust mutual aid resources and capabilities. The ability to share public and private resources across businesses and jurisdictions underpins our nation’s emergency response plans and strategies today. (See Appendix C for a more detailed definition of a catastrophic outage). This profound threat requires a new national focus. The NIAC found that our existing plans, response resources, and coordination strategies would be outmatched by an event of this severity.”— https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/NIAC%20Catastrophic%20Power%20Outage%20Study_508%20FINAL.pdf?

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548174235 Timestamp) THE HURDLE WE MUST OVERCOME You see, you think people have agency. That the rider dominates the elephant. But I undrestand very clearly, that developing agency depends on the biological ability to do so, the market demand to do so, and the discipline to do so. So I see the elephant as a very simple machine, and the rider (consciousness) as a tool with which the elephant identifies opportunities, negotiates cooperation and executes conflict. In other words I see all we think and do as JUSTIFYING the elephant. And that very,very few of us are fully human and able to transcend the elephant. And that propertarianism is a means, like stoicism, like mathematics, of transcending the elephant – or rather COMPLETING THE TRANSCENDENCE OF MAN. It is only really becoming clear to me that the time I spent on artificial intelligence – realizing that at the time it was a dead end – is the enormous advantage that I have over my philosophical contemporaries. And it is the reason that Searle and Hayek have been so ‘right’, and why I hope to make people understand that Turing, Chomsky’s application of turing, Popper and the operationalists were so close. All learning is continuous recursion. Epistemology and neurology are the same subject.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548128754 Timestamp) Just realized that many of you are out there applying the method while I’m working on it, and that’s why you’re accelerating so quickly. Very cool.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548172938 Timestamp) “TERNARY LOGIC OF COOPERATION” In propertarianism, we don’t start with morality. We start with needing an incentive not to engage in parasitism and predation which for the strong is the preferable state of affairs. The only incentive possible is reciprocity because of the long term gains of scale. Everyone else starts with the presumption that cooperation at any cost is a good. We start with the presumption that only reciprocity is a good. We are right and they are parasites.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548113366 Timestamp) THE 21ST CENTURY AND CURRENT REVOLUTIONS Um. Let me help you. This is what modern revolution looks like from the outside:

    1. Rapid continuous runs, disrupting infrastructure.
    2. Disrupting transport, commerce, trade and first responders.
    3. Starting fires, breaking water and gas, mains.
    4. “Deplatforming” academics, the media, and politicians.
    5. Watching the ‘urban plantations’ collapse in chaos.
    6. Lots of barbecues, parties, and other celebrations with many new friends. Pretty much all the time.
    7. All the Loot you can carry.
    8. Commandeering a new vehicle to transport it – and you.
    9. Getting paid 250k each to go home.
    10. Telling fish stories about your adventures until you’re old and grey.

    And of course, there is the alternative of the status quo. This is what revolutionaries around the world are doing. They are not trying to get control of government and to use it for territorial expansion. Because the era of 4GW is here, and the Peace of Westphalia has ended, and the western way of war cannot concentrate forces on men in sneakers, flip flops, among the citizenry.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1548143428 Timestamp) DATA DOESN”T LIE

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548104523 Timestamp) SEE HOW THEY RUN. SECOND TODAY. Look at how they construct arguments in an attempt to preserve their comforts. —-“You still have to assume a framework for falsifying. If you don’t leave room for questioning said framework, it’s dogma. Is that not clear?”— Ben Quimby No it is not clear. logic is not dogma. justificationism is false and falsificationism is not. these are not open questions unless you find a means of opening them by falsifying falsificationism. An authority must command a dogma. Logic cannot be otherwise. Falsification cannot be otherwise. You can claim this is false somehow but defensive skepticism is just admission of failure to do so. —“To be fair, questioning doesn’t necessarily imply falsifying. Nobody wants to falsify logic, AFAIK; what they want is to “hint”, let’s say (b/c you can’t do this logically), that some truths, like logic itself, are meta-logical.”—Ben Quimby —“It’s not admissable, that’s true. And then, if they can’t testify to it, we have to resort to deciding on intent. That’s true. What a weird puzzle. I see both sides. Assuming there are such things as meta-logical truths, this would appear to throw a bit of a wrench in the whole prosecution of non-logical information thing. And you’re naturally worried about being consistent with what gets prosecuted. You can’t even argue that it’s worth sacrificing meta-logical truths, b/c your framework won’t even allow you to acknowledge them as such. And if it did, you might not make that argument. But as someone who can see these “truths”, at least provisionally, the answer here (cost-benefit analysis) is not at all clear to me.”—Ben Quimby “Define meta-logical truths” (There aren’t any) —-“[One can’t coherently define meta-coherence; that comes with the territory.] Take ‘change’ (process) for example. It’s not definable, it’s not falsifiable, and yet we don’t subordinate it to something lesser, like fiction. We acknowledge change as some kind of fact or truth, as something that “just is”, something that “can’t be otherwise”, and yet it hasn’t passed our formalized tests of truth.”— Ben Quimby :Meta-coherence” means intuitionistic, free-associations, not open to analysis. (There is nothing not open to analysis, only not open to testing.) To define change is very easy. Time=rate of entropy. Change is any perceivable difference in constant relations over time. That is what it means, and that is what it must mean, and that is what we are capable of percieving, because that is the only capacity of our neurons. —“Yeah, perception, difference, constancy, relations, time; more meta-analytical terms. They’re meaningful, no doubt; just not in a way we can reference concretely. As for neuronal capacities, I question whether we really know what we mean by that. At any rate, the point isn’t to debate this. The point is to test for the ability to step into a separate lens: Can you see what they see without interpreting via your current frame? Hence the “hard problem” question: Do you UNDERSTAND the hard problem as it is seen through the eyes of those who think it’s a valid problem? If you could show something like that, I think it would be extremely powerful. I look at things like this: If I can demonstrate comprehension of both my perspective and the other guy’s (on their terms), and they can only demonstrate comprehension of their own, then it’s more likely I hold the superior (more comprehensive) position. Anyways, I’m trying to get away from internet stuff these days. Yesterday was a spur of the moment type thing–a relapse, if you will. It shant happen again. Cheers.”— If i can demonstrate both but also the degree of falsity of both it is moel likely that the least false least fictional most parsimonious holds te superior more comprehensive position, The hardest part of each major revolution: reason, empiricism, science, darwinianism, and operationalism has been the recalcitrance of those invested in the comforting fictions that they hold dear. Testimonialism is a revolutionary as the revolutions in reason, empiricism, science, darwinianism, and operationalism. And like those who have malinvested in moralism, malinvested in scripturalism, malinvested in rationalism, the malinvestment is driven out of the market by superior investment. -Cheers 😉