Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • MARX WAS A SEDITIOUS HUCKSTER – AND SO ARE HIS FOLLOWERS Marx was not just wrong

    MARX WAS A SEDITIOUS HUCKSTER – AND SO ARE HIS FOLLOWERS

    Marx was not just wrong but a seditious huckster, continuing thousands of years of the same, by a civilization of seditious hucksters, by casting European man as an oppressor, rather than as obeying the gods, in order to become gods – leaving maladaptive hucksters behind.

    The history of man is one of increasing rates of adaptation to the physical, behavioral, and evolutionary laws of nature and the gradual defeat of the red queen, and the distribution of adaptive and maladaptive genes that result from the distribution of that rate of evolution.

    It’s genetics all the way down. Genetics produce behavior which produces culture, which determines rate of evolution.

    Europeans evolved faster than all the rest combined because we discovered the only political foundations that allow man to adapt faster than all other civilizations combined – the continuation of natural selection by reciprocal grant of self-determination by self-determined means, to any and all who, could, and could be trusted to adhere to that contract – regardless of cost.

    This political system prohibits authority, and invests authority only in the law, creating rule of law, not rule by man – this is the law of continuation of natural selection by the reciprocal insurance of self-determination by self-determined means, requiring individual sovereignty in our demonstrated interests, and reciprocity in display word and deed in respect for those demonstrated interests, thereby limiting us to adversarial competition by the best in markets that serve one another.

    It is the most psychologically, mentally, and physically costly civilizational method, producing the greatest rate of innovation and adaptation, the greatest prosperity for the greatest number, over the greatest span of time, and no others appear to be able to perform it.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-04-23 14:21:53 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106115085993604370

  • @dukh @Nationalist7346 (This comment made my day)

    @dukh @Nationalist7346 (This comment made my day)

    Source date (UTC): 2021-04-23 02:15:02 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106112227871858975

  • @SicSemperTyrannis_1776 That’s pretty good. Yes. “What can you write with this c

    @SicSemperTyrannis_1776 That’s pretty good. Yes. “What can you write with this combination of types. The continuous combination of operations like the recombinate potential of language, or the potential of n-dimensions in math, or the combination of applied chemistry, or biochemistry, or genetics is infinite. But it has to be constructable.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-04-22 01:49:23 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106106464735657239

  • Read the Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entries (or Equivalent) 1 – Operationalism 2

    Read the Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entries (or Equivalent)
    1 – Operationalism
    2 – The Emergence of First Order Logic
    3 – Constructive Mathematics
    4 – Intuitionism

    In simple terms we must be able to construct a claim of the possibility of existence from a seuqence of operations each of which is dependent upon construction from, consistency with, continuity with, first prinicples.

    Where as axioms(math) are declared (variable) and we seek to prove deducibility of a claim from declared, presumptive, or arbitrary premises. In science (Testimony) laws are discovered (invariant) and we seek to prove constructability from discovered, necessary, and invariant premises.

    In other words, computable. Math favors idealism in pursuit of scale and context independence. Law requires realism (realism, naturalism, operationalism) because we are deciding human scale and context dependence.

    In P-Law we eliminate the dependence on non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle that are necessary for independence of scale and context. And replace them with the law of continuous recursive disambiguation sufficient to satisfy the demand for decidability in the context.

    Why? Becuase the physical sciences seek to explain, and the legal science seeks to identify ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, denial, deceit, fraud, crime, and war.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-04-22 01:40:36 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106106430202668998

  • Answers to India’s Questions to Zeihan with My Adds.

    ANSWERS: INDIA CORE ISSUE: The idea of becoming a major power is gone. India is the dominant power in its region. It has the ability to regulate trade in the region. And india can take advantage of it. India is one of only six countries that is developed and not having a population collapse. India is one of a dozen countries that will not have to face an energy crisis. In other words, India is navally to Eurasia as Byzantium was to Europe and the middle east and asia. (CD: the question is whether india can convert from a ‘follower’ country(civilization) to a leader country(civilization). This inabilty to convert to a ‘leader’ civilization is the reason for the repeated historical conquests of india. So, in my opinion, it’s a cultural ‘habit’ or ‘tradition’ that must be overcome. In the institutional formation process, india chose unorganized religion, which of state and power, or law and commerce, is the weakest organizing principle. It’s in many ways beautiful. Harmonious. But it is also vulnerable, and cannot seize opportunities.) INDIA: ECONOMIC India is a loose empire, and must mirror the European tradition, of different states (regions) specializing in different production – that need only, like Germany, be unified by rail. WHY WOULD THE US LEAVE? Thanklessness of the world, and the maltreatment of ordinary americans. Enabling the EU and Canada to undermine the western culture by virtue-signaling that they’re superior, but making Americans pay for the cost of the international order. The cost of maintaining a world military. The trauma of soldiers returning from the middle east. The destruction of the white middle, working, and laboring classes by the offshoring of their labor, paid for the overexpansion of national debt. The American Government is more concerned with the international than the domestic. The left has succeeded in immigrating enough of the third world to create social, cultural, political, and economic breakdown. An empire only survives because it profits from creating an international order. The American world order was not created for the purpose of creating an empire from which it would profit. It was created for the purpose of paying countries to be on our side against marxism communism. Yet there is no reason to pay other countries, pay for the world order, without compensation, and there is no possible means of obtaining that compensation from the world.

  • Answers to India’s Questions to Zeihan with My Adds.

    ANSWERS: INDIA CORE ISSUE: The idea of becoming a major power is gone. India is the dominant power in its region. It has the ability to regulate trade in the region. And india can take advantage of it. India is one of only six countries that is developed and not having a population collapse. India is one of a dozen countries that will not have to face an energy crisis. In other words, India is navally to Eurasia as Byzantium was to Europe and the middle east and asia. (CD: the question is whether india can convert from a ‘follower’ country(civilization) to a leader country(civilization). This inabilty to convert to a ‘leader’ civilization is the reason for the repeated historical conquests of india. So, in my opinion, it’s a cultural ‘habit’ or ‘tradition’ that must be overcome. In the institutional formation process, india chose unorganized religion, which of state and power, or law and commerce, is the weakest organizing principle. It’s in many ways beautiful. Harmonious. But it is also vulnerable, and cannot seize opportunities.) INDIA: ECONOMIC India is a loose empire, and must mirror the European tradition, of different states (regions) specializing in different production – that need only, like Germany, be unified by rail. WHY WOULD THE US LEAVE? Thanklessness of the world, and the maltreatment of ordinary americans. Enabling the EU and Canada to undermine the western culture by virtue-signaling that they’re superior, but making Americans pay for the cost of the international order. The cost of maintaining a world military. The trauma of soldiers returning from the middle east. The destruction of the white middle, working, and laboring classes by the offshoring of their labor, paid for the overexpansion of national debt. The American Government is more concerned with the international than the domestic. The left has succeeded in immigrating enough of the third world to create social, cultural, political, and economic breakdown. An empire only survives because it profits from creating an international order. The American world order was not created for the purpose of creating an empire from which it would profit. It was created for the purpose of paying countries to be on our side against marxism communism. Yet there is no reason to pay other countries, pay for the world order, without compensation, and there is no possible means of obtaining that compensation from the world.

  • Comment on the present condition of AI

    Good. Accurate. Would say that I think at least some of us who are aware of the three shortcomings that confirm your opinion. hardware, world model, self-training, sufficient recursion of prediction.
     
    (a) neural nets today can categorize and predict within a trained domain. in other words, they aren’t ai’s their robots (machines)
    (b) adversarial neural nets can only improve that process
    (c) the hardware is inverted from the brain which has many millions of tiny processors (columns) working in parallel vs serial or batches of serial processing.
    (d) the brain works on sequences in time that test for coherence of prediction between ‘nodes’ (groups of neurons, columns, macro columns)
    (e) the coherent predictions across these subsystems survive competition with one another for integration,
    (f) integration of relatively simultaneous predictions produces our experience of a moment.
    (g) the brain creates an index of coherence producing an episodic memory out of location, place, borders, landmarks, objects, head direction, eye direction, the direction of movement, rate of turn, and rate of movement.
    (h) it is these episodes that survive the test of coherence over time in a continuous stream of input that we auto-associate with one another, producing predictions.
    (i) we ‘wayfind’ by recursion.
    (j) we develop a hierarchy of recursion, and eventually what we call consciousness if enough recursion is possible, across enoug neurons, with enough biological economy to maintain that neural activity.
     
    So thats a more precise manner of explainin the authors correct assessment that all we have done is produce hardware cheap enough to accomplish what all of us working on AI in the 80s knew already. And thanfully tools that make development cheap enough. But really, Baysian systems are just another form of database for the categorization of stimuli.

  • Comment on the present condition of AI

    Good. Accurate. Would say that I think at least some of us who are aware of the three shortcomings that confirm your opinion. hardware, world model, self-training, sufficient recursion of prediction.
     
    (a) neural nets today can categorize and predict within a trained domain. in other words, they aren’t ai’s their robots (machines)
    (b) adversarial neural nets can only improve that process
    (c) the hardware is inverted from the brain which has many millions of tiny processors (columns) working in parallel vs serial or batches of serial processing.
    (d) the brain works on sequences in time that test for coherence of prediction between ‘nodes’ (groups of neurons, columns, macro columns)
    (e) the coherent predictions across these subsystems survive competition with one another for integration,
    (f) integration of relatively simultaneous predictions produces our experience of a moment.
    (g) the brain creates an index of coherence producing an episodic memory out of location, place, borders, landmarks, objects, head direction, eye direction, the direction of movement, rate of turn, and rate of movement.
    (h) it is these episodes that survive the test of coherence over time in a continuous stream of input that we auto-associate with one another, producing predictions.
    (i) we ‘wayfind’ by recursion.
    (j) we develop a hierarchy of recursion, and eventually what we call consciousness if enough recursion is possible, across enoug neurons, with enough biological economy to maintain that neural activity.
     
    So thats a more precise manner of explainin the authors correct assessment that all we have done is produce hardware cheap enough to accomplish what all of us working on AI in the 80s knew already. And thanfully tools that make development cheap enough. But really, Baysian systems are just another form of database for the categorization of stimuli.

  • Definition: Fictionalism (Full)

    Fictionalism is the name of the judgment within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make-believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”). Fictionalism consists of at least the following three theses:

    1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be “truth-apt”; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.

    2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:

        • conversation(bonding or entertainment),
        • discourse (discovery),
        • argument(persuasion), and
        • testimony(reporting),

    Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of

        • description vs fiction,
        • honesty vs deceit, and
        • truth or falsehood,

    Of our statements. (We white and grey lie all-time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.)

    3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication, and communication by suggestion, with which anlogy is the necessary means of transfer of meaning. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.The Common occurrences of fictionalism are:

    1) Mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)

    2) Modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and;

    3) Idealism (Platonist Fictionalism)

    4) Moral Fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.

    5) Religious Fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism.

    6) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) We must note that all of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past. Positioning the Fictionalisms In Grammatical Context

    |Fictions| Testimony > Narration > Story > Fiction > Fictionalism > Deception > Fraud A positive Fictionalism refers to those statements that appear to be descriptions of the real world (reality) but are cases of “make believe” – of pretending that a given useful fiction is other than just a useful fiction. A negative Fictionalism refers to the most successful means of deception (coercion) by loading, framing and overloading. Given our the methods of perception:

    |Perception| Physical (sensory) > Intuitionistic (intuitionistic, emotional) > Mental (intellectual, reason) And the methods of inflating and conflating them:

    |Fictionalisms| Magical (Technical, Physical) > Supernatural (Occult, Experiential) > Ideal (Intellectual, Verbal) We produce these common uses of Fictionalism:

    1. Ideal (verbal, intellectual):

    1) Mathematical Fictionalism, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)

    2) Platonic Fictionalism (Idealism) which states that….

    3) Rational Fictionalism (continental philosophy)

    2. Magical (Physical, Technical):

    4) Human Fictionalism (‘Denialism’) state that equality in all possible dimensions (a falsehood), is too necessary to throw out.

    5) Modal Fictionalism developed by _________ which states that possible worlds, or multiple worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse.

    6) Pseudosciences:

    3. Supernormal (Imaginary, Experiential):

    7) Moral Fictionalism in meta-ethics, suggests that fictions (falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.

    8) Religious Fictionalism in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of Fictionalism are too useful, and somehow necessary to throw out.

    9) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) are somehow necessary to escape reality, or fabricate a false version of it. We must note that all of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past, and failing to perform the cost of reformation of the terms, paradigms, and stories. Fictionalisms make use of three presumptions:

    1) Communication of Meaning: The purpose of discourse(discovery) in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.

    2) Meaningful but not True: Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.

    3) A Useful Fiction Not Open To Further Interpretation (Face Value): The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:

      • Conversation(bonding or entertainment),
      • Discourse (discovery),
      • Argument(persuasion), and
      • Testimony(reporting),

    … Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of:

      • Description vs. Fiction,
      • Honesty vs. Deceit,
      • Truth or Falsehood,

    … of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.) Speakers attempt to preserve the use of Fictionalisms for one of the following possible reasons:

    1) To obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or 2) To preserve the sunk cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or 3) To avoid the costs of reformation the method of decidability within their domains. 4) To avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered. 5) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgments are truths. 6) To conduct frauds by using their arbitrary preferences or judgments for coercion or profit.  And, of these groups:

    0) Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism) 1) Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ), 2) Supernormal Physicists, and 3) Mathematical Platonists; All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons:

    1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths. 2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or 3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or 4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains. 5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered. And so:

    If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and;

    If we define Truth  (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then:

    We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.

    We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.

  • Definition: Fictionalism (Full)

    Fictionalism is the name of the judgment within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make-believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”). Fictionalism consists of at least the following three theses:

    1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be “truth-apt”; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.

    2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:

        • conversation(bonding or entertainment),
        • discourse (discovery),
        • argument(persuasion), and
        • testimony(reporting),

    Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of

        • description vs fiction,
        • honesty vs deceit, and
        • truth or falsehood,

    Of our statements. (We white and grey lie all-time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.)

    3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication, and communication by suggestion, with which anlogy is the necessary means of transfer of meaning. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.The Common occurrences of fictionalism are:

    1) Mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)

    2) Modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and;

    3) Idealism (Platonist Fictionalism)

    4) Moral Fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.

    5) Religious Fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism.

    6) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) We must note that all of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past. Positioning the Fictionalisms In Grammatical Context

    |Fictions| Testimony > Narration > Story > Fiction > Fictionalism > Deception > Fraud A positive Fictionalism refers to those statements that appear to be descriptions of the real world (reality) but are cases of “make believe” – of pretending that a given useful fiction is other than just a useful fiction. A negative Fictionalism refers to the most successful means of deception (coercion) by loading, framing and overloading. Given our the methods of perception:

    |Perception| Physical (sensory) > Intuitionistic (intuitionistic, emotional) > Mental (intellectual, reason) And the methods of inflating and conflating them:

    |Fictionalisms| Magical (Technical, Physical) > Supernatural (Occult, Experiential) > Ideal (Intellectual, Verbal) We produce these common uses of Fictionalism:

    1. Ideal (verbal, intellectual):

    1) Mathematical Fictionalism, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)

    2) Platonic Fictionalism (Idealism) which states that….

    3) Rational Fictionalism (continental philosophy)

    2. Magical (Physical, Technical):

    4) Human Fictionalism (‘Denialism’) state that equality in all possible dimensions (a falsehood), is too necessary to throw out.

    5) Modal Fictionalism developed by _________ which states that possible worlds, or multiple worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse.

    6) Pseudosciences:

    3. Supernormal (Imaginary, Experiential):

    7) Moral Fictionalism in meta-ethics, suggests that fictions (falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.

    8) Religious Fictionalism in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of Fictionalism are too useful, and somehow necessary to throw out.

    9) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) are somehow necessary to escape reality, or fabricate a false version of it. We must note that all of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past, and failing to perform the cost of reformation of the terms, paradigms, and stories. Fictionalisms make use of three presumptions:

    1) Communication of Meaning: The purpose of discourse(discovery) in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.

    2) Meaningful but not True: Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.

    3) A Useful Fiction Not Open To Further Interpretation (Face Value): The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:

      • Conversation(bonding or entertainment),
      • Discourse (discovery),
      • Argument(persuasion), and
      • Testimony(reporting),

    … Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of:

      • Description vs. Fiction,
      • Honesty vs. Deceit,
      • Truth or Falsehood,

    … of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.) Speakers attempt to preserve the use of Fictionalisms for one of the following possible reasons:

    1) To obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or 2) To preserve the sunk cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or 3) To avoid the costs of reformation the method of decidability within their domains. 4) To avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered. 5) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgments are truths. 6) To conduct frauds by using their arbitrary preferences or judgments for coercion or profit.  And, of these groups:

    0) Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism) 1) Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ), 2) Supernormal Physicists, and 3) Mathematical Platonists; All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons:

    1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths. 2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or 3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or 4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains. 5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered. And so:

    If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and;

    If we define Truth  (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then:

    We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.

    We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.