Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548132106 Timestamp) —“The idea of applying the scientific method to law is so foreign to this toxic political climate, the ideologues will undoubtedly try and burn you as a heretic for this.”— Kevin Wu

  • 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 1548131051 Timestamp) BEGINNING OF THE BEGINNING —“Animal sacrifice as virtue signalling.”— Adam Voight (true. genius) (repost)

  • 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 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 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 😉

  • Curt Doolittle added a new photo to Eli Harman’s timeline.

    (FB 1548209761 Timestamp) ( dunno if you saw this but it’s a hilarious compliment and jab at the same time. ) There is an advantage to having a hemisphere between you and the guy you’re teasing… lol

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548272583 Timestamp) ( Minor and unnecessary (and eventually fruitless) legal matter making me furious the past few days. It’s the only time I self medicate: to stop the anger. Dear ancestors: thank you for scotch and water. Here’s to all of you. 😉 )

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548195658 Timestamp) THE TRADE-OFF TRIANGLE OF CIVILIZATIONAL DIFFERENCES “Truth, Vs Face, Vs Gain.” …………………..(Europe)…………………. ……………………TRUTH…………………… ……………………/…………………………… …………………../……….. …………………. …………….FACE —— GAIN…………… (asia-west asia)………(afro-south west asia.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548201426 Timestamp) ( Every time I deal with the government in even the most trivial of ways I re-experience each rage of each injustice that they have done to me, and to my people on a scale that comes very close to making me lose all care for life, and use of reason. The exception? Really wealthy communities tend to provide pretty good customer service. It was WAAAAY easier to find someone to bribe in eastern europe than it is to get some slacker in the USA to do her job. )