—“Curt, I’d like to ask about your break down of class. It seems based on IQ and income level is that a correct assessment?”— Um… well, I use genetic, social, occupational, and economic classes – even though they overlap a great deal as horizontal classes. And I use the three specializations in means of coercion as vertical classes. But since there is such a high correlation between genetic classes and all other horizontal classes, unless I say otherwise, I am generally referring to genetic classes. And genetic class refers to a portfolio of fitnesses that include IQ as well as personality, morphology, and health. So with that qualification, I think I would say that just as IQ a high predictor in life, it is not the only predictor. But for purpose of general argument it is as good a rule of thumb as any other. Curt Doolittle
Source: Original Site Post
-
Series: Instrumental Extensions of our Memories
Symbols provide an improvement upon memory. Writing symbols evolved to create lists of inventory. A journal is an improvement upon lists. An accounting system is an improvement over a journal. A hierarchical database is just the automation of an accounting system. A relational database is just an advancement over an accounting system. A document store with a searchable full text index is an extension of a relational database. A non-referentially-integral document store with full text index that can calculate results from the properties of indices is an improvement upon the relational database. A semantic store of relations between meanings (networks of properties reducible to human experience) is an improvement over a document store. An inferential store of candidate relations (stored as non-euclidian geometric relations) between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over a semantic store. An automated explorer of stimuli(inputs) that attempts to use streams of inputs to test inferred candidate relations between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over an inferential store. An an automated seeker of inferred streams of inputs necessary to test inferred candidate relations between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over an automated explorer. An automated choice of the value of the results of automated seeking of inferred streams of inputs necessary to test inferred candidate relations between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over an automated seeker. An automated judge of the consequences of the choice of values is an improvement over an automatic decision maker. An automated regulator (policeman) of the judgements of the consequences of … However, that hierarchy gracefully upgrades and degrades. We need symbols, lists, journals, accounting systems, hierarchical databases, relational databases, and so on… But if we work hard enough we come round full circle as the only difference in each of these conditions is the cost of retaining and locating memories. Where, in that series, we evolved to store the minimum amount of information, searchable at the minimum cost, to do precisely the same thing – but at much smaller scale than the machines that we ask to perform the same task at ever increasing scales.
-
Series: Instrumental Extensions of our Memories
Symbols provide an improvement upon memory. Writing symbols evolved to create lists of inventory. A journal is an improvement upon lists. An accounting system is an improvement over a journal. A hierarchical database is just the automation of an accounting system. A relational database is just an advancement over an accounting system. A document store with a searchable full text index is an extension of a relational database. A non-referentially-integral document store with full text index that can calculate results from the properties of indices is an improvement upon the relational database. A semantic store of relations between meanings (networks of properties reducible to human experience) is an improvement over a document store. An inferential store of candidate relations (stored as non-euclidian geometric relations) between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over a semantic store. An automated explorer of stimuli(inputs) that attempts to use streams of inputs to test inferred candidate relations between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over an inferential store. An an automated seeker of inferred streams of inputs necessary to test inferred candidate relations between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over an automated explorer. An automated choice of the value of the results of automated seeking of inferred streams of inputs necessary to test inferred candidate relations between meanings of properties reducible to human experience is an improvement over an automated seeker. An automated judge of the consequences of the choice of values is an improvement over an automatic decision maker. An automated regulator (policeman) of the judgements of the consequences of … However, that hierarchy gracefully upgrades and degrades. We need symbols, lists, journals, accounting systems, hierarchical databases, relational databases, and so on… But if we work hard enough we come round full circle as the only difference in each of these conditions is the cost of retaining and locating memories. Where, in that series, we evolved to store the minimum amount of information, searchable at the minimum cost, to do precisely the same thing – but at much smaller scale than the machines that we ask to perform the same task at ever increasing scales.
-
Stay with Arguments To The End
STAY WITH THE ARGUMENT UNTIL THE END (nonsense. example of the problem of the paradigmatic shift of propertarianism given the shift created in the informational commons by the internet) Well, I”m glad that we stuck with it long enough to fully demonstrate your egoism, rallying, shaming, and ad hom’s, and how assuming you have the faintest idea what argument is being made, only demonstrates your inflated self image. YOUR ORIGINAL (FALSE) STATEMENT [–]despicable_secret https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ -1 points 7 days ago For some extra fun, watch Curt have no idea how Wikipedia works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Propertarianism IF YOU HAD THE GOOD MANNERS NOT TO ASSUME YOU ‘UNDERSTOOD’. (a) As i’ve wasted my time demonstrating, not only do I know how it works… (b) .. but I actively rebel against ‘how it works’. Why? (c) Because it damages the informational commons. (d) It damages the informational commons by reinforcing the institutionalized paradigm of the (critical theory) left’s status quo. (e) And the purpose of my work is to expand Natural Law to incorporate Testimonial Truth (Complete Scientific Truth), so that it is impossible to create paradigms through control of or funding of media – by supplying the only competition falsehoods (frauds) require: law. Just as you are a thief of the territorial, physical and normative commons by advocating libertinism, you’re a thief of the informational commons by justifying a paradigm (method) that damages the informational commons. You don’t KNOW you’re a parasite. But you are. Just as the leftists are parasites on private property, you are on territorial, material, and informational common property. We can either pay the cost of policing the commons (territorial, physical, institutional, normative, and informational), or we free-ride on the policing of others. One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns. So you see, it’s not that I dont’ know how it works. It’s precisely *because* I know how it works. Which if you read the text of the post was my point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and by this process the editor (which is common on wikipedia), constructed original research via negativa. (Although I agree this is probably above your head as much as it was the editor, that doesn’t matter. The record of these arguments is a demonstration of the fact: research, development, and education have moved to non-curated forms on the web, that are verifiable in existence, but cannot use *appeal to the authority of the curator*. The correct criticism which he or she could have levied was that ‘it’s not notable at its current level of popularity in curated media. The reason being that the right libertarian, dark enlightenment, propertarian movements have originated in a period where discourse has moved to the web, which is a non-curated (reviewed) medium, because it is a free (or largely) free medium of publishing, distribution, and consumption. And this is why everyone wants me to publish (before I am done). Because that produces the record. My personal view is the only reason to publish is to create the record, because I have no need or want of money, and could publish entirely on the web, and keep a live-document running with live contributions – which is my plan. Again, you never had any intention of inquiry, never to understand, never to TEST YOUR HYPOTHESIS – but simply to cowardly rally, shame, and ridicule as a means of defending your malinvestment in priors. You lack agency. You are not fully human. You are too weak to inquire. But, while the cost of policing and prosecuting your various forms of parasitism has been high, in exchange I am able to use this as a record to show others just how difficult and expensive it is to police the informational commons. Thanks for taking the bait. Those who lack agency, who are not fully human, who seek liberty by permission rather than sovereignty in fact, are easily caught by the bait. Why? Because the ego lies. You assumed a paradigm. You did not seek, as a scientist does, to refute your paradigm. You sought to confirm yours. Cheers.
-
Stay with Arguments To The End
STAY WITH THE ARGUMENT UNTIL THE END (nonsense. example of the problem of the paradigmatic shift of propertarianism given the shift created in the informational commons by the internet) Well, I”m glad that we stuck with it long enough to fully demonstrate your egoism, rallying, shaming, and ad hom’s, and how assuming you have the faintest idea what argument is being made, only demonstrates your inflated self image. YOUR ORIGINAL (FALSE) STATEMENT [–]despicable_secret https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ -1 points 7 days ago For some extra fun, watch Curt have no idea how Wikipedia works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Propertarianism IF YOU HAD THE GOOD MANNERS NOT TO ASSUME YOU ‘UNDERSTOOD’. (a) As i’ve wasted my time demonstrating, not only do I know how it works… (b) .. but I actively rebel against ‘how it works’. Why? (c) Because it damages the informational commons. (d) It damages the informational commons by reinforcing the institutionalized paradigm of the (critical theory) left’s status quo. (e) And the purpose of my work is to expand Natural Law to incorporate Testimonial Truth (Complete Scientific Truth), so that it is impossible to create paradigms through control of or funding of media – by supplying the only competition falsehoods (frauds) require: law. Just as you are a thief of the territorial, physical and normative commons by advocating libertinism, you’re a thief of the informational commons by justifying a paradigm (method) that damages the informational commons. You don’t KNOW you’re a parasite. But you are. Just as the leftists are parasites on private property, you are on territorial, material, and informational common property. We can either pay the cost of policing the commons (territorial, physical, institutional, normative, and informational), or we free-ride on the policing of others. One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns. So you see, it’s not that I dont’ know how it works. It’s precisely *because* I know how it works. Which if you read the text of the post was my point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and by this process the editor (which is common on wikipedia), constructed original research via negativa. (Although I agree this is probably above your head as much as it was the editor, that doesn’t matter. The record of these arguments is a demonstration of the fact: research, development, and education have moved to non-curated forms on the web, that are verifiable in existence, but cannot use *appeal to the authority of the curator*. The correct criticism which he or she could have levied was that ‘it’s not notable at its current level of popularity in curated media. The reason being that the right libertarian, dark enlightenment, propertarian movements have originated in a period where discourse has moved to the web, which is a non-curated (reviewed) medium, because it is a free (or largely) free medium of publishing, distribution, and consumption. And this is why everyone wants me to publish (before I am done). Because that produces the record. My personal view is the only reason to publish is to create the record, because I have no need or want of money, and could publish entirely on the web, and keep a live-document running with live contributions – which is my plan. Again, you never had any intention of inquiry, never to understand, never to TEST YOUR HYPOTHESIS – but simply to cowardly rally, shame, and ridicule as a means of defending your malinvestment in priors. You lack agency. You are not fully human. You are too weak to inquire. But, while the cost of policing and prosecuting your various forms of parasitism has been high, in exchange I am able to use this as a record to show others just how difficult and expensive it is to police the informational commons. Thanks for taking the bait. Those who lack agency, who are not fully human, who seek liberty by permission rather than sovereignty in fact, are easily caught by the bait. Why? Because the ego lies. You assumed a paradigm. You did not seek, as a scientist does, to refute your paradigm. You sought to confirm yours. Cheers.
-
Philosophy (Moral Literature) Is Not Much Help
I AM NOT SURE PHILOSOPHY (LITERATURE) IS MUCH HELP (from elsewhere) It’s one thing to suspect, another thing to do. Reading is hard. Arithmetic is harder is harder than reading. Accounting is harder than arithmetic. Programming is harder than accounting Natural Law is harder than programming. If you look at the people who have been with us for a long time everyone has gotten better at argument. Some can use the basic arguments. Some people can use the various series. But how many of us can write natural law in operational grammar? The beauty of Propertarainism is that it contains each of those levels: the historical argument, the causality of Acquisitionism (incentives), The epistemology of Testimonialism, the Ethics (and definitions of unethical) of Propertarianinism, the politics of Market Government, the competition of group evolutionary strategies, the aesthetics of transcendence …. and the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of natural law. There is something for everyone no matter their level of ability. But just as some people can do arithmetic, some accounting, some mathematics, some programming … only some will be able to write natural law (for example, like James Augustus does intuitively or John Dow approaches). Myself I think it is more important for most people to recognize and READ it (just as reading can be taught to most people) than it is to WRITE it (which requires far less effort and ability). The vast majority of people will learn propertarianism (natural law) from Eli, not me, and can be introduced by William Butchman or others. Those who can construct grammatical arguments, I think, will be those who come by it intuitively, or who have financial, legal, and programming experience, or who simply work hard at it like any other of the ‘logics’. The problem for those who study philosophy (literature), is that it is in fact just ‘literature’, and not a STEM discipline (science). And to some degree it anchors you just as religion anchors the theological. Natural Law, like programming, logic, and math, is a STEM discipline. The difference between programming and natural law is merely that the comparison tests (incentives) of man, and the operations (actions) of man, are mere ‘calculations’, and as such broader, and less limited than the ‘computations’ of machines. And while the machine checks our cognitive biases due to it’s rigid grammar, we must check ourselves in our arguments by checking our own grammar. And that is the very hardest part.
-
Philosophy (Moral Literature) Is Not Much Help
I AM NOT SURE PHILOSOPHY (LITERATURE) IS MUCH HELP (from elsewhere) It’s one thing to suspect, another thing to do. Reading is hard. Arithmetic is harder is harder than reading. Accounting is harder than arithmetic. Programming is harder than accounting Natural Law is harder than programming. If you look at the people who have been with us for a long time everyone has gotten better at argument. Some can use the basic arguments. Some people can use the various series. But how many of us can write natural law in operational grammar? The beauty of Propertarainism is that it contains each of those levels: the historical argument, the causality of Acquisitionism (incentives), The epistemology of Testimonialism, the Ethics (and definitions of unethical) of Propertarianinism, the politics of Market Government, the competition of group evolutionary strategies, the aesthetics of transcendence …. and the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of natural law. There is something for everyone no matter their level of ability. But just as some people can do arithmetic, some accounting, some mathematics, some programming … only some will be able to write natural law (for example, like James Augustus does intuitively or John Dow approaches). Myself I think it is more important for most people to recognize and READ it (just as reading can be taught to most people) than it is to WRITE it (which requires far less effort and ability). The vast majority of people will learn propertarianism (natural law) from Eli, not me, and can be introduced by William Butchman or others. Those who can construct grammatical arguments, I think, will be those who come by it intuitively, or who have financial, legal, and programming experience, or who simply work hard at it like any other of the ‘logics’. The problem for those who study philosophy (literature), is that it is in fact just ‘literature’, and not a STEM discipline (science). And to some degree it anchors you just as religion anchors the theological. Natural Law, like programming, logic, and math, is a STEM discipline. The difference between programming and natural law is merely that the comparison tests (incentives) of man, and the operations (actions) of man, are mere ‘calculations’, and as such broader, and less limited than the ‘computations’ of machines. And while the machine checks our cognitive biases due to it’s rigid grammar, we must check ourselves in our arguments by checking our own grammar. And that is the very hardest part.
-
The Demands of Sovereignty
THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS, THE COMMONS AND MERE LIBERTY ***’One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns.***
-
The Demands of Sovereignty
THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS, THE COMMONS AND MERE LIBERTY ***’One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns.***
-
Once You Grasp the Term Propertarian, You Will Eventually Find Propertarianism.
YOU GET AN A+. (from elsewhere) Propertarian = the reduction of social science, group evolutionary strategy, morality, politics, law, ethics, and cognition, to statements of the voluntary or involuntary transfer of property between consenting individuals. Next you will grasp that the scope of property Rothbard claims (physical intersubjective) lacking rule of law, and Hoppe’s use of rule of law, limited to the intersubjectively verifiable), cannot provide the incentives necessary to produce a sustainable voluntary polity capable of surviving competition against other polities. Once you have made that distinction you can come join Propertarianism: 1) Acquisitionism (psychology) 2) Testimonialism (epistemology) 3) Propertarianism (ethics and morality) 4) Evolutionary Strategy (Sociology) 5) Market Government (Politics) (“Market Fascism for the insiders – meaning only markets”) 6) Group Evolutionary Strategy (avoidance, competition, conflict, war) 7) Aesthetics of Transcendence (obtaining Sovereignty through Agency) 8) Natural Law: the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of all of the above. The normal path of maturity appears to be Libertarian > Anarcho Capitalist > Dark Enlightenment > Propertarianism. This spectrum describes hope (Libertarianisn), separatism (anarcho capitalism), hopelessness (dark enlightenment), taking responsibility (Sovereignty: Propertarianism : Natural Law of Sovereign Men.) Its a lot harder than memorizing a few simple phrases common in libertarianism, or mastering a few arguments as in Anarcho Capitalism. But if it was easy it wouldn’t have taken us so long to write a formal grammar of Natural Law. We’re waiting for you. Or at least, those who can make the journey. -Cheers