Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • More on The Economics of Neurons

    by Pat Ryan Neurons don’t have a complete nucleus. Evolution has determined that letting neurons go through mitosis is a terrible idea and when you think about it, that makes sense. If I can just conjure up a huge amount of neurons to process all of the information the universe can generate, I will quickly run myself out of glucose and oxygen to the point of death. So… any organism that went down the road of mitosis scale died for those reasons and only neurons that were denied access to mitosis persisted. That means a fundamental disconnect between genetic cognition and neural cognition: Genetics operates on exponential scales to match inputs, but neurons operate by intentionally limiting inputs. You just can’t see every photon a light bulb generates or you’re going to literally die very quickly. Therefore, what you see about reality is the direct byproduct of this lack of scale-driven neural mitosis. This is the root mechanism responsible for “awareness” and is the core part of all evolution of intelligence. The alternative is a slime mold, which DOES go through mitosis and operates somewhat like a colony of neurons.. but it cannot get beyond that state because there is no pressure to manage established connections when you can just always grow outward to solve your problems. Locationists can suck it! Entropy is the only way!

  • Male and Female Similarities and Differences

    Male and female brains differ structurally. Male and female brains differ in endocrine responses. Male and female brains differ in cognitive biases. Male and female brains vary morally because of those differences. What I think people are confused by is: – That these are only biases and we all share experiences. – That our brains divide the labor of searching for opportunity (prey) and searching for risk (predators). – That some of us develop in more masculine environments and therefore adapt to them through ‘exercise’ of those cognitive, emotional, and moral biases; and some of us develop in more feminine environments and adapt to them through like exercise. The problem is that both males and females need sufficient stresses of adaptation to function in their gender roles. So there are more feminine males and more masculine males in both body, emotions, and minds.

  • Male and Female Similarities and Differences

    Male and female brains differ structurally. Male and female brains differ in endocrine responses. Male and female brains differ in cognitive biases. Male and female brains vary morally because of those differences. What I think people are confused by is: – That these are only biases and we all share experiences. – That our brains divide the labor of searching for opportunity (prey) and searching for risk (predators). – That some of us develop in more masculine environments and therefore adapt to them through ‘exercise’ of those cognitive, emotional, and moral biases; and some of us develop in more feminine environments and adapt to them through like exercise. The problem is that both males and females need sufficient stresses of adaptation to function in their gender roles. So there are more feminine males and more masculine males in both body, emotions, and minds.

  • The Choice: Episode 34 – Our Choice. We Choose: Prosecution, Persecution, Punishment, Eradication.

    (important)(core)(the consolidated idea) There are people who can make testimonial arguments, and those that can’t. And the reasons are lack of agency(consciousness), lack of innate ability (intelligence), lack of knowledge of how to do so (skill), lack of training of how to do so given all of the above (institutional habituation), and the intentional undermining of the ancient western tradition that speech as sacred and warrantied, and as such lack of environmental indoctrination. A Testimonial argument meaning categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible (meaning existentially audit-able), consisting of a sequence of rational choices, and with others, of reciprocally rational choices, and always parsimonious, limited, and fully accounted – which includes all the dimensions humans are capable of comprehending and expressing. By limiting our speech to the requirements of each of those dimensions, we perform due diligence against dependence upon ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, withholding, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit. Now, our courts force us into testimonial speech under threat of punishment, and under competition from offense and defense, and under the refereeing of a judge, and under the subjective testing of a jury. And, due to historical reasons we simply do not have the means of requiring testimonial (truthful) speech under ‘free speech’ they way we did with under libel, slander and judicial duel. And on the internet we do not have the opportunity to use violence to suppress untruthful (un-warrantied) speech. So we have produced vast incentives and industrialized means of untruthful un-warrantied speech. So, at this juncture, we can either descend further into deceit using Abrahamic Pilpul to continue to increase the frequency and universalism of fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-wisdom literature/Theology) – or we can restore the ‘sacredness’ of one’s speech by the restoration of libel, slander, and the duel, and extend the demand for warranty of due diligence from services and goods to information and therefore speech – a logical evolution of the defense of the markets from fraud and harm, by the incremental suppression of parasitism using the natural, common law, of reciprocity. The strong choose the latter: prosecution, persecution, punishment, and eradication. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine. May 19, 2018 9:10am

  • The Choice: Episode 34 – Our Choice. We Choose: Prosecution, Persecution, Punishment, Eradication.

    (important)(core)(the consolidated idea) There are people who can make testimonial arguments, and those that can’t. And the reasons are lack of agency(consciousness), lack of innate ability (intelligence), lack of knowledge of how to do so (skill), lack of training of how to do so given all of the above (institutional habituation), and the intentional undermining of the ancient western tradition that speech as sacred and warrantied, and as such lack of environmental indoctrination. A Testimonial argument meaning categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible (meaning existentially audit-able), consisting of a sequence of rational choices, and with others, of reciprocally rational choices, and always parsimonious, limited, and fully accounted – which includes all the dimensions humans are capable of comprehending and expressing. By limiting our speech to the requirements of each of those dimensions, we perform due diligence against dependence upon ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, withholding, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit. Now, our courts force us into testimonial speech under threat of punishment, and under competition from offense and defense, and under the refereeing of a judge, and under the subjective testing of a jury. And, due to historical reasons we simply do not have the means of requiring testimonial (truthful) speech under ‘free speech’ they way we did with under libel, slander and judicial duel. And on the internet we do not have the opportunity to use violence to suppress untruthful (un-warrantied) speech. So we have produced vast incentives and industrialized means of untruthful un-warrantied speech. So, at this juncture, we can either descend further into deceit using Abrahamic Pilpul to continue to increase the frequency and universalism of fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-wisdom literature/Theology) – or we can restore the ‘sacredness’ of one’s speech by the restoration of libel, slander, and the duel, and extend the demand for warranty of due diligence from services and goods to information and therefore speech – a logical evolution of the defense of the markets from fraud and harm, by the incremental suppression of parasitism using the natural, common law, of reciprocity. The strong choose the latter: prosecution, persecution, punishment, and eradication. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine. May 19, 2018 9:10am

  • Some Bunnies Waste My Time.

    –“I’m tickled to death that the guy with the BA is attempting to talk down about intellect to the person with the Doctorate.”— Sloan Henry Um. Let me help you sweetie. 1) People like me don’t ask permission for a degree. We go out into the world and ACHIEVE independent of permission. Most of us drop out of university because it’s just a waste of time if you can DO the competitive, rather than get a degree so that you beg someone to LET you do the trivial. Especially in my generation (Gates,Jobs,Ellison). Those of us with superior ability DEMONSTRATE ability. We don’t ask for certification without demonstration of ability. We DO. That’s why Ive been on the Inc 500 a couple of times and you haven’t. Thats why I built multiple successful companies and you didn’t. That’s why I can generate an innovation in human thought – and you use marxist/feminist/post-modern ‘critique’. 2) Every PhD program I’ve looked into has told me the same thing “There is no value in a PhD for you. A PhD won’t help you. Just write and publish. Besides, there is no way to put a dissertation committee together across that many fields here.” (Note: I had enough money to pay for it, and just treat the PhD period as my “Hermitage”. The truth is I’m extremely disruptive intellectually in any such environment and I always have been.) 3) What is your doctorate in? I mean, anyone can ‘do time’ in the American educational system and get a doctorate outside of the STEM fields. It’s not like Germany or even Oxford for that matter. You just pay for a degree in the states, you don’t have to earn it. So you are equating paying for a piece of paper and a failure to accomplish anything with a person who built multiple companies by the time I was your age. From nothing. Without having a cent of my own. 4) You can’t construct an argument without resorting to Post-Modern / Feminist critique to save your soul. That’s evidence. If you could evidence skill that’d be one thing. But you can’t. Just Critique. So I mean, evidence of ability is evidence. So far you haven’t got any other than serial sexual, social, economic, and intellectual dysfunctionality. I mean. Really. I try not to stomp on the bunnies unless they waste my time. But some bunnies waste my time. And it does take some time and effort to stomp on the bunnies now and then, but like all contributions to the moral commons it’s an act of altruistic punishment: expensive but required of all of us in order to preserve the incentive for truthful, reciprocal, cooperation. May 19, 2018 10:21am

    —“tl;dr”— Sloan Henry I understand. It’s an IQ thing: you just lack it. Hence the fascination with fantasy moral literature, use of straw manning, ridicule, trolling, gossiping, (Critique), and collecting a ‘tribe’ of dysfunctionals (low sexual, social, economic, and political market value). All of whom are desperately seeking fellow dysfunctionals (undesirables), with whom to form a cult of illusionary narrative in which to find some status signaling. The “Undesirable” will always have a problem of a conflict of self image and inability to compete sexually, socially, economically, politically, and militarily, in reality. So this is why you need the use of Critique and the FIctionalisms, whereas those of us with high market value and high ability to compete choose truth, testimony, warranty, and science: precisely because correspondence with reality is utilitarian. The precision of my work is terrifying to the inadequate mind, and that’s why it’s a high investment program – just like the law which it mirrors. The problem is that, like the opposites (Heidegger, Hegel) the minimum terminology necessary to even begin to use it is just too much of an investment and too frustrating for the less able.
    May 19, 2018 9:56am

  • Some Bunnies Waste My Time.

    –“I’m tickled to death that the guy with the BA is attempting to talk down about intellect to the person with the Doctorate.”— Sloan Henry Um. Let me help you sweetie. 1) People like me don’t ask permission for a degree. We go out into the world and ACHIEVE independent of permission. Most of us drop out of university because it’s just a waste of time if you can DO the competitive, rather than get a degree so that you beg someone to LET you do the trivial. Especially in my generation (Gates,Jobs,Ellison). Those of us with superior ability DEMONSTRATE ability. We don’t ask for certification without demonstration of ability. We DO. That’s why Ive been on the Inc 500 a couple of times and you haven’t. Thats why I built multiple successful companies and you didn’t. That’s why I can generate an innovation in human thought – and you use marxist/feminist/post-modern ‘critique’. 2) Every PhD program I’ve looked into has told me the same thing “There is no value in a PhD for you. A PhD won’t help you. Just write and publish. Besides, there is no way to put a dissertation committee together across that many fields here.” (Note: I had enough money to pay for it, and just treat the PhD period as my “Hermitage”. The truth is I’m extremely disruptive intellectually in any such environment and I always have been.) 3) What is your doctorate in? I mean, anyone can ‘do time’ in the American educational system and get a doctorate outside of the STEM fields. It’s not like Germany or even Oxford for that matter. You just pay for a degree in the states, you don’t have to earn it. So you are equating paying for a piece of paper and a failure to accomplish anything with a person who built multiple companies by the time I was your age. From nothing. Without having a cent of my own. 4) You can’t construct an argument without resorting to Post-Modern / Feminist critique to save your soul. That’s evidence. If you could evidence skill that’d be one thing. But you can’t. Just Critique. So I mean, evidence of ability is evidence. So far you haven’t got any other than serial sexual, social, economic, and intellectual dysfunctionality. I mean. Really. I try not to stomp on the bunnies unless they waste my time. But some bunnies waste my time. And it does take some time and effort to stomp on the bunnies now and then, but like all contributions to the moral commons it’s an act of altruistic punishment: expensive but required of all of us in order to preserve the incentive for truthful, reciprocal, cooperation. May 19, 2018 10:21am

    —“tl;dr”— Sloan Henry I understand. It’s an IQ thing: you just lack it. Hence the fascination with fantasy moral literature, use of straw manning, ridicule, trolling, gossiping, (Critique), and collecting a ‘tribe’ of dysfunctionals (low sexual, social, economic, and political market value). All of whom are desperately seeking fellow dysfunctionals (undesirables), with whom to form a cult of illusionary narrative in which to find some status signaling. The “Undesirable” will always have a problem of a conflict of self image and inability to compete sexually, socially, economically, politically, and militarily, in reality. So this is why you need the use of Critique and the FIctionalisms, whereas those of us with high market value and high ability to compete choose truth, testimony, warranty, and science: precisely because correspondence with reality is utilitarian. The precision of my work is terrifying to the inadequate mind, and that’s why it’s a high investment program – just like the law which it mirrors. The problem is that, like the opposites (Heidegger, Hegel) the minimum terminology necessary to even begin to use it is just too much of an investment and too frustrating for the less able.
    May 19, 2018 9:56am

  • Learning Art History

    You read Gardner – I mean that’s enough. You learn world history; you get a vague grasp of technological history -most of art history is the evolution of representational technologies on the one hand and mythos (symbolism) on the other. Monumental art is expensive, and empires can afford the expensive, and it’s one of the few things that is extremely difficult to imitate without equal expense, so it has extraordinary signal value. Monuments are profoundly good investments in reality. There is no equivalent. When you understand its all just money, and that military empires create good art because they both can afford to and politically need to then it’s all rather obvious. From that knowledge base you can focus on the mastery of each of the crafts – all of which combine both technical knowledge with extraordinary repetition (training). And so I found working in fine art as tedious as playing chess: in order to be good enough you must spend ten years getting there and only after that have you any chance of making a difference. As such, either you find an innovation in representational technology young and use it (like mathematicians do) or you develop deep talents like all craftsmen do. The problem with literature at present (meaning) is that (((they))) have been working through marxism, POMO, feminism for over a century now to destroy all forms of excellence via critique – essentially soiling everything that is beautiful and excellent with the fecal matter of marxism/feminism/postmodernism. I know that I read encyclopedias and history young, studied art and see human history as the evolution of arts and technologies. It was after I added economics and economic history that I developed a wholistic understanding of man. Hence why I have a low opinion of the history of thought: it consists largely of the middle class writing opposition literature against the status quo by proposing ideals that are existentially impossible but agitating and cathartic none the less. May 19, 2018 10:57am

  • Learning Art History

    You read Gardner – I mean that’s enough. You learn world history; you get a vague grasp of technological history -most of art history is the evolution of representational technologies on the one hand and mythos (symbolism) on the other. Monumental art is expensive, and empires can afford the expensive, and it’s one of the few things that is extremely difficult to imitate without equal expense, so it has extraordinary signal value. Monuments are profoundly good investments in reality. There is no equivalent. When you understand its all just money, and that military empires create good art because they both can afford to and politically need to then it’s all rather obvious. From that knowledge base you can focus on the mastery of each of the crafts – all of which combine both technical knowledge with extraordinary repetition (training). And so I found working in fine art as tedious as playing chess: in order to be good enough you must spend ten years getting there and only after that have you any chance of making a difference. As such, either you find an innovation in representational technology young and use it (like mathematicians do) or you develop deep talents like all craftsmen do. The problem with literature at present (meaning) is that (((they))) have been working through marxism, POMO, feminism for over a century now to destroy all forms of excellence via critique – essentially soiling everything that is beautiful and excellent with the fecal matter of marxism/feminism/postmodernism. I know that I read encyclopedias and history young, studied art and see human history as the evolution of arts and technologies. It was after I added economics and economic history that I developed a wholistic understanding of man. Hence why I have a low opinion of the history of thought: it consists largely of the middle class writing opposition literature against the status quo by proposing ideals that are existentially impossible but agitating and cathartic none the less. May 19, 2018 10:57am

  • Anti Economics Trends

    (Re: https://theihs.org/seminars-conferences/policy-research-seminars/new-tech/) I think it’s nonsense. Economics is a very immature, that by accident of history has had an opportunity to replace property, law, reciprocity, and markets as the western means of government – because of the world wars, and the destruction of the traditional european order of small state monarchies with houses as markets for the commons, all under traditional common law of torts (reciprocity). All immature sciences have been problematic due to human rush to judgement and over enthusiastic use of new insights to gain advantages over others. Marxism, scientific socialism, keynesian monetarism, feminism, postmodernism are all attempts to use the violence of government to extract from others by force as a means of circumventing traditional exchanges between the classes – producing predictable results. Economics is repairable just as all sciences are repairable. Economics is rife with cherry-picking the way that social science is rife with attribution bias. ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Social_biases ) The Human desire that economic science advance their interests in politics is prohibitable. But the MATERIAL differences between the genders, classes, and sub-races is not ‘fixable’, other than by small-state nationalism, because all the alternatives -searching for equality- eventually result in castes(hinduism/brazil) or imperial tribalism(islam). And they must. Because no polity can survive competition for leadership without dependence upon its upper classes. So the problem was not economics, but the REPLACEMENT of rule of law, markets for exchanges of commons between the classes, with monopoly government using pseudoscientific methods of measurement to impose a war of transfers upon the classes – each of which rebels against it. May 19, 2018 11:21am