Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The Criteria for a Philosopher

    Technically speaking to be considered a philosopher in history you need to compose, write, and publish, a system of thought. A minor philosophy addresses a topic or problem. A logician is a different thing altogether.

  • Reading Habits

    —“What’s your reading schedule look like? Do you take a structured approach or just wander about at random? Are you still reading a lot these days?”– A Friend Um… I go through all the economics, hbd, archeological, blogs every day, and if a paper or article looks interesting, or if a book is recommended I add it to my list. I write when i’m fresh. I scan blogs when i’m no longer fresh, and read the papers right away, and then read the books when I’m tired. When I read the books I follow Adler’s advice: I scan the table of contents, scan a few pages, look for the central argument, read that, and rarely do I read all the ‘filler’ around it. Most books can be summarized in a paper, and the best books start out as papers. If I don’t understand something or if I disagree with something I read more until I can tell if the author is making an error or not. (Which is far easier than you’d think.) If I want to read something and thoroughly understand it I will import it somehow – usually into pdf, and have my machine read it to me while I’m doing something else. I rarely do one thing at a time. And authors typically present information too slowly. (hence why I am a fan of gary stanley becker.) That said I read certain authors no matter what they write. But I write far more than I read. Why? I read a great deal before I started writing. And the rate of change is something that I can keep up with pretty easily (outside of materials science… and in particular chemistry, which has always offended my autism). I don’t like getting my hands dirty, like finger painting, or gardening, and my memories of chemistry and biology are nothing bug icky stuff that smells bad. lol
    May 14, 2018 1:14pm

  • Reading Habits

    —“What’s your reading schedule look like? Do you take a structured approach or just wander about at random? Are you still reading a lot these days?”– A Friend Um… I go through all the economics, hbd, archeological, blogs every day, and if a paper or article looks interesting, or if a book is recommended I add it to my list. I write when i’m fresh. I scan blogs when i’m no longer fresh, and read the papers right away, and then read the books when I’m tired. When I read the books I follow Adler’s advice: I scan the table of contents, scan a few pages, look for the central argument, read that, and rarely do I read all the ‘filler’ around it. Most books can be summarized in a paper, and the best books start out as papers. If I don’t understand something or if I disagree with something I read more until I can tell if the author is making an error or not. (Which is far easier than you’d think.) If I want to read something and thoroughly understand it I will import it somehow – usually into pdf, and have my machine read it to me while I’m doing something else. I rarely do one thing at a time. And authors typically present information too slowly. (hence why I am a fan of gary stanley becker.) That said I read certain authors no matter what they write. But I write far more than I read. Why? I read a great deal before I started writing. And the rate of change is something that I can keep up with pretty easily (outside of materials science… and in particular chemistry, which has always offended my autism). I don’t like getting my hands dirty, like finger painting, or gardening, and my memories of chemistry and biology are nothing bug icky stuff that smells bad. lol
    May 14, 2018 1:14pm

  • —“You Are Wrong About Gods”–

    I’m not wrong about gods at all. The only question is whether it’s possible for not-quite-humans to function without an imaginary pack leader acting as a unit of measurement. I mean, women demonstrate NAXALT, and men demonstrate INTENTIONALITY, and by both demonstrations we can identify the not-yet-human, not yet possessing agency, and therefore not yet capable of sovereignty. Now, I know why the weak mind needs such lies. But the question is, can we train the weak mind to possess sufficient agency that it does not need these lies. It should be possible for many.

  • —“You Are Wrong About Gods”–

    I’m not wrong about gods at all. The only question is whether it’s possible for not-quite-humans to function without an imaginary pack leader acting as a unit of measurement. I mean, women demonstrate NAXALT, and men demonstrate INTENTIONALITY, and by both demonstrations we can identify the not-yet-human, not yet possessing agency, and therefore not yet capable of sovereignty. Now, I know why the weak mind needs such lies. But the question is, can we train the weak mind to possess sufficient agency that it does not need these lies. It should be possible for many.

  • The Intellectually Honest Skeptic Asks, the Intellectually Dishonest Overconfident Demands.

    (I wish more people would simply ask questions, rather than try to debate me – very, very few people can participate in non-trivial debate – but then I don’t want to suppress, and instead I want to celebrate, the male desire to learn through competition. The problem with learning through competition is understanding that you’re testing yourself, not the other. I run my classroom so to speak as a great game of king of the hill, because I understand that competition and heroism is how men are willing to ‘invest’ in their education, the same way that women are willing to invest by obedience and conformity. Men need a game – a proxy for war – to have the incentive to learn. This is why mixed-gender education is literally causing brain damage to men.)

  • The Intellectually Honest Skeptic Asks, the Intellectually Dishonest Overconfident Demands.

    (I wish more people would simply ask questions, rather than try to debate me – very, very few people can participate in non-trivial debate – but then I don’t want to suppress, and instead I want to celebrate, the male desire to learn through competition. The problem with learning through competition is understanding that you’re testing yourself, not the other. I run my classroom so to speak as a great game of king of the hill, because I understand that competition and heroism is how men are willing to ‘invest’ in their education, the same way that women are willing to invest by obedience and conformity. Men need a game – a proxy for war – to have the incentive to learn. This is why mixed-gender education is literally causing brain damage to men.)

  • Math Does Not Exist in Reality, We Invented Math to Describe Reality, Because Reality Consists of Constant Relations.

    Due to the limited number of operations available at various temperatures to various particles, and the consequential formation of patterns (symmetries, asymmetries) of constant relations at various scales (force, particle, element, molecule…) due to those limited operations, and the hierarchy of operations possible at different scales, we will easily identify certain consistencies across these scales the same way we will identify consistencies (symmetries) in mathematical fields. Math does not appear in what we study. The use of positional names, provides constant relations at scale independence, and primitive operations on positions (ratios), preserve those constant relations. Ergo, the universe consists of a limited number of fundamental rules the combinations of which at different temperatures and in different proximities produce deterministic (invariant) changes in state equilibrating frequency(energy) those differences as entropy. In other words, the universe, lacks intelligence and choice and as such is entirely deterministic (consisting of constant relations), and since positional names consist of nothing BUT constant relations we can use positional naming constructed of ratios, to produce scale independent general rules (descriptions) of those constant relations. Math is just another language made by man to describe the most trivially simple properties of an invariant choiceness universe. The ability to use math to describe the universe’s regularity is in and of itself evidence of the absence of choice in the universe and therefore evidence of the absence of any intelligence, and as such evidence of the absence of any ‘deity’. There is no evidence of anything in the universe other than random effects of deterministic changes in state producing entropy. That we can created math disproves a god.

  • Math Does Not Exist in Reality, We Invented Math to Describe Reality, Because Reality Consists of Constant Relations.

    Due to the limited number of operations available at various temperatures to various particles, and the consequential formation of patterns (symmetries, asymmetries) of constant relations at various scales (force, particle, element, molecule…) due to those limited operations, and the hierarchy of operations possible at different scales, we will easily identify certain consistencies across these scales the same way we will identify consistencies (symmetries) in mathematical fields. Math does not appear in what we study. The use of positional names, provides constant relations at scale independence, and primitive operations on positions (ratios), preserve those constant relations. Ergo, the universe consists of a limited number of fundamental rules the combinations of which at different temperatures and in different proximities produce deterministic (invariant) changes in state equilibrating frequency(energy) those differences as entropy. In other words, the universe, lacks intelligence and choice and as such is entirely deterministic (consisting of constant relations), and since positional names consist of nothing BUT constant relations we can use positional naming constructed of ratios, to produce scale independent general rules (descriptions) of those constant relations. Math is just another language made by man to describe the most trivially simple properties of an invariant choiceness universe. The ability to use math to describe the universe’s regularity is in and of itself evidence of the absence of choice in the universe and therefore evidence of the absence of any intelligence, and as such evidence of the absence of any ‘deity’. There is no evidence of anything in the universe other than random effects of deterministic changes in state producing entropy. That we can created math disproves a god.

  • The Only Time To Use A God Via Positiva

    In any dispute between two testimonies regarding the same phenomenon, we have two tests of decidability: 1- Rationality (incentives) 2 – Parsimony (occam’s razor) If the incentive exist to fictionalize, and if fictionalism is defeated by parsimony, then the person is in fact lying. The only time to use a god is via positiva (poetic meaning and communication) but it cannot be used via negativa (truth or argument). The reason gods were necessary is intergenerational transfer. if gods were mortal they could not explain the long standing. A god is just a unit of measure of the intertemporal.