Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The Fraud of Tolerance

    —Should we be tolerant? Should we tolerate intolerance? If we don’t, does that make us intolerant?—

    We can always justify truthful speech. Why and how can we justify tolerance of anything other than truthful speech? Why should we justify falsehood, libel, slander, and risk (yelling fire in a theater for example). So, why did the founders of the constitution, attempting to transform anglo empirical law into a formal logic of social science, state that freedom of speech was permissible instead of that freedom of truthful speech was permissible, and that punishment for use of false speech was permissible? (Jefferson’s ambition was brilliant but incomplete.) The problem we have faced through history, is that because our justificationary language was based upon the false application of internal axiomatic moral language, we confused moral and legal justification with theoretic and survivable truth. And only with contemporary science did we discover that we cannot justify theoretic argument no matter what we do – we can only perform due thorough due diligence against falsehood in theoretic systems, including all of ethics, economics, and politics. We have just endured a century of pseudoscience, propaganda, and deceit, on a scale not seen since the use of writing and roads to spread the conflation of law and religion we call monotheism. And it has cost us as much damage as that last deceit caused the roman empire, and western civilization, and the dark ages that followed, and all the painful reformations that we have born: anglo, french, german, and Jewish, Russian, Chinese, and now Muslim. But why have we been so susceptible to the lies, deceits, pseudosciences, and falsehoods of the 19th and 20th centuries? (media scale vs pulpit and book, and town crier and parchment scale) And how can we perform due diligence and warranty against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit? WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE Now, we can’t possibly cover this subject in detail as an interjection, but these are the six tests, the first three which are familiar to scientists, and the last possibly so. 1 – categorical consistency (identity)(non-conflation) 2 – logical consistency (internal consistency)(non-contradictory) 3 – empirical consistency (external correspondence)(repeatable) 4 – operational consistency (existential possibility)(possible) 5 – moral consistency (reciprocal voluntary transfers)(moral) 6 – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, and parsimony) The first novel test is 4-Operational consistency, meaning that we write in the objective language of action, as do the physical scientists, so that each step we discuss is subjectively testable, and existentially possible, and does not conflate actor intent, observer interpretation, and subjective experience, but simply a record of the actions taken. (This technique can be found by researching e-prime.) The second novel test objective morality under which we require that all transfers consist of productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange limited to externalities of the same criteria. This is definition of natural law: the law of non-imposition of costs that would cause resentment or retaliation which would disincentivize the process of cooperation, and limit the disproportionate returns of cooperation. So now that we know how to demand the same warranty of truthfulness in speech that we do in advertising, marketing, production, distribution, and trade, why do we not demand implicitly warranty against harm, by the demand for due diligence in the qualification of political speech, just as we over the centuries have incrementally demanded due diligence and warranty of the fitness for service of goods, services, and all other products? The only reason to do so is to continue to allow deceit. Or to fail to pay the cost of suppressing falsehood out of convenience. Or worse, —“Why is it that people should be lied to and not taught Truth, or spoken to, but not spoken to truthfully, or speak, and not speak truthfully? To engage in human husbandry.”—David Mondrus We can all tolerate uncomfortable truths. That the universe doesn’t care about us has been one discomfort after another. But why must we tolerate falsehoods, frauds, and deceits, pseudorationalism (obscurantism), and pseudoscience (deception) when we know how to demand due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading ( including pseudoscience), and deceit? Why must we give voice to error bias, wishful thinking suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit? If so, why do products and services require regulation? Do we not live in an information economy now, where it is information that is our primary product and primary good of consumption? THE BEAUTY OF IT ALL Here is what I am certain of: that the same delta in human achievement that resulted from the greek development of reason, and the suppression of mysticism in the commons; and that same delta in human achievement that resulted from the English invention of empiricism, and the suppression of mysticism and rationalism in the commons, would be brought to mankind by the development of truthfulness as a suppression for error, propaganda, and deception in the commons. And likewise I am quite certain that just as the mystics fought reason tooth and nail, and just as the religious and theological fought empiricism tooth and nail, and just as the spiritual fought darwin tooth and nail, and those who practice theology, rationalism, and pseudoscience, and justificationary deception will fight tooth and nail. Because, each of these groups profits from their lies. The next great leap in human civilization is not technology. it’s morality and law: truth telling. It will be as great a leap as science has been. Now, imagine all the books written today, how many are false? Sure, it is true, that we need a different book to discuss the same idea, for every ten points of intelligence, from about 140 on down. But how many fundamental truths are there? (we have estimates in the range of a few hundred to less than two thousand). Why is it that people should be lied to and not taught truth, or spoken to, but not spoken to truthfully, or speak, and not speak truthfully? Why do we have any more right to pollute the informational commons than we do the other commons of air, water, and land? Why can we cause informational harm out of ignorance, yet we are prohibited from economic and criminal harm out of ignorance or not? What was the cost of literacy? What was the cost of creating rule of law? What was the cost of western high trust? We must tolerate the truth, productive competition, the vagaries of the voluntary organization of reproduction we call the family, the vagaries of the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade we call the market economy, and the vagaries of competition for the production of commons that we call government. But there is no reason we must tolerate preventable harm by error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deception, any more than we have tolerated murder, violence, theft, fraud, conspiracy, conquest by conversion, conquest by immigration, and conquest by war. So no. Tolerance is an excuse to conflate convenience (cost) with conviction, in exchange for false status signals, fraudulently obtained, by the pretense of charity versus the evasion of the tax necessary for the preservation of a high-trust society and its benefits. The tolerant so to speak are just engaged in fraud and nothing more. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of the West: Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • God Does Not Speak To Us. We Can Only Read His Writings In the Fabric of the Universe

    THE LANGUAGE OF GOD? OR OF MEN? Sorry religious folk, but religious language is a language of men, not god – science and mathematics are the language of god. Religious law is the command of men, not god – natural law discovered by science is the law of god. Heaven is not created by god, but created by men – it is nature that we domesticate for our use that produces paradise in a universe that is hostile to us. Prophets were not speaking the word of god, but spinning stories by men for the control and manipulation of the ignorant. There is nothing found in the lies of the prophets that cannot be stated truthfully in the language of god: Math, Scientific Truth Natual Law, Physical Law, created by god, put into the minds of man through his discovery, and put to work by the hand of man because of that discovery. God wrote to us with reality. He does not speak to us. We can only read his writings in the fabric of the universe.

  • God Does Not Speak To Us. We Can Only Read His Writings In the Fabric of the Universe

    THE LANGUAGE OF GOD? OR OF MEN? Sorry religious folk, but religious language is a language of men, not god – science and mathematics are the language of god. Religious law is the command of men, not god – natural law discovered by science is the law of god. Heaven is not created by god, but created by men – it is nature that we domesticate for our use that produces paradise in a universe that is hostile to us. Prophets were not speaking the word of god, but spinning stories by men for the control and manipulation of the ignorant. There is nothing found in the lies of the prophets that cannot be stated truthfully in the language of god: Math, Scientific Truth Natual Law, Physical Law, created by god, put into the minds of man through his discovery, and put to work by the hand of man because of that discovery. God wrote to us with reality. He does not speak to us. We can only read his writings in the fabric of the universe.

  • The State of AI

    There is a large body of work on the risks of Artificial Intelligence, and the spectrum of methods of defending against one from policing, to forced forgetting, to But central to that work is the consensus that we are still quite far away from producing an Artifical General Intelligence (AGI). That’s because we are demonstrably very, very, far from creating any form of general AI that can compete with even a small group of intelligent humans in the identification of patterns. We are barely at the brainstem level, and are nowhere near autonomous, conscious, cooperative(sympathetic), or theoretical levels. Sure, there is clearly a multi-dimensional category of problems that we are forever going to need computational help in modeling and manipulating – but it is unclear if increasing dimensions exist in the universe or whether we cross a boundary where the universe does not model these phenomenon, they are purely mental relations between events of related behavior. For example, in physics, in bio chemistry, in economics, and in mental phenomenon, we seem to be close to discovering the underlying number of physical dimensional relations (laws). We seem to have a pretty clear view of molecular and protein relations. We seem to have a pretty weak view of human cooperative relations. And we are almost nowhere in our understanding of mental conceptual relations. However, it’s very unlikely, that even though each of those sets of relations increases in scale, that none of them increase infinitely in scale. So that at some point we can identify a minimum set of general rules for describing each of them. My current opinion is that mathematicians understand now to model n-dimensional relations, but we just do not know the limits of the natural relations that we wish to model. When we consider what humans can ‘think of’ and what ‘patterns that they can seek’ it seems to require an awful lot of information to identify a new pattern that adds a new dimension. I am fairly sure that artificial intelligence can help us do this. But I will stick with the very obvious proposition, that for the identification of dimensions and the identification of patterns of relations, that our problem remains information gathering of sufficient precision to identify relations, not a problem of humans identifying relations. In other words, we evolve conceptually very fast if we possess data that is obtained by tools, which is then reducible to analogy to experience such that we can create a mental model of it. This is why I think we misconceptualize the scientific method. The scientific method simply asks us to perform due diligence upon our testimony to reduce bias and error, and prevent deception. The rest of the discipline requires the custom development of increasingly precise and diverse tools for the process of inspection and measurement. IN this sense, I group ALL crafts together in the pursuit of truth of some sort, and then categorize the three forms of coercion gossip/moral, remuneration/trade, force/law, as the three dimensions of coercion and the one dimension of truth (craft). In other words, the scientific method is a MORAL set of rules that we can certainly impose as RULE OF LAW, enforcing those moral rules, and then as such all of us in all disciplines are bound by the scientific, moral, and legal constraint of truthfulness. And the we have only one discipline of knowledge(craft/investigation), and one of cooperation (negotiation/trade), and one of positive ambitions (gossip/rallying) and one of limits to those ambitions (force/law). I think this two axis view of social orders is probably about as close as we need for any analysis of human orders. Now, back to artificial intelligence, I tend to look at the problem the same way: – investigate/discover, (I would call this modeling rather than computation, just as I think Turing wanted computers to use ‘expensive’ logic rather than ‘cheap’ computation.) – fantasize (search for patterns) – (voluntary) trade, (search for opportunities) – limits (test our limits) And I would say that any artificial intelligence should possess those four ‘processors’, and only be introspectively AWARE of the results of those four. (It’s not as if the cpu is aware of the contents of the FPU for example. It just compares results.) In other words, just as we cannot observe our brainstem process, our physical movement processes, or our search (intuitionistic) processes, but only our RESULTS from those processes, then feed back those results for further processing (recursive searching) I suspect there is almost no VALUE in a general intelligence engaging in introspective observation and permutation. In fact I am almost certain that this is the definition of general intelligence. Now, there are two ways to handle limits. Either deny the observer (general intelligence) access to immoral, unethical, and illegal results, or weigh results so that it can ‘solve for’ (search for) methods of obtaining the same results by moral means; And there is a big difference between identifying opportunities (finding a search pattern) and constructing a plan. And plans (workflow processes) are a known problem. While as humans we prefer to work in nodes (deliverables or ‘jobs’. or lists,) because context switching is very hard for us and reduces the value of our general intelligence in performing tasks, computers do not have this problem and they can process many threads of ‘workflows’ in parallel. Because we can only concieve of what we can keep ‘echoing’ between our short and long term memories, To create a plan (a sequence of operations) any machine must produce some sort of data structure to accommodate it. We humans one of these structures as well but it is extremely limited – which is why we need numbers, writing, lists, sentences, paragraphs, stories, and plans. We actually repeat simple lists over and over in our imaginations in order to try to keep them. But machines do not have this problem of ‘losing context’ or discreet memory. So we can also regulate the execution of the plan since a plan must occur in sequence in time. So it’s possible to create a conscience or judge that regulates the plan (attempts to falsify the optimistic theory), and that has no other interest other than falsifying the optimistic theory (plan). And since unlike human minds, other machines can directly inspect the workings of another, it’s possible to police (bottom up) the theories (top down) of any aritficial general intelligence. So my view is this: (a) the funamental problem is one of data structures, not pattern finding. And that I believe that in order to be useful in any performance scenario, that these datastructures will be spatially n-dimensional, and searches will use pattern identification in n-dimensionsl pattners through them – identifying what’s missing as opportunity rather than what matches as ‘true’. (b) that language, and the network of symbols that they refer to, accurately can describe the universe. (c) that the four functions should be invisible to the consciousness that makes choices about which opportunities to explore (provides decidability). (d) that a separate ai should police the plans (workflow). (e) that it is unlikely that any intelligence with these constraints would infact be described as consious, but merely a very complex calculator. (f) Like the movie Memento I think the first dangerous problem of it is storing information outside itself, and providing incentives to use that info to reconstruct such a plan – given some motivation to do so. And like many other scenarios, the second dangerous problem is seeking to make people happy rather than seeking to solve problems that are requested of it. Any machine that tries to make us happy will eventually harm us. Because we will give it the same incentive as drugs give us. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • The State of AI

    There is a large body of work on the risks of Artificial Intelligence, and the spectrum of methods of defending against one from policing, to forced forgetting, to But central to that work is the consensus that we are still quite far away from producing an Artifical General Intelligence (AGI). That’s because we are demonstrably very, very, far from creating any form of general AI that can compete with even a small group of intelligent humans in the identification of patterns. We are barely at the brainstem level, and are nowhere near autonomous, conscious, cooperative(sympathetic), or theoretical levels. Sure, there is clearly a multi-dimensional category of problems that we are forever going to need computational help in modeling and manipulating – but it is unclear if increasing dimensions exist in the universe or whether we cross a boundary where the universe does not model these phenomenon, they are purely mental relations between events of related behavior. For example, in physics, in bio chemistry, in economics, and in mental phenomenon, we seem to be close to discovering the underlying number of physical dimensional relations (laws). We seem to have a pretty clear view of molecular and protein relations. We seem to have a pretty weak view of human cooperative relations. And we are almost nowhere in our understanding of mental conceptual relations. However, it’s very unlikely, that even though each of those sets of relations increases in scale, that none of them increase infinitely in scale. So that at some point we can identify a minimum set of general rules for describing each of them. My current opinion is that mathematicians understand now to model n-dimensional relations, but we just do not know the limits of the natural relations that we wish to model. When we consider what humans can ‘think of’ and what ‘patterns that they can seek’ it seems to require an awful lot of information to identify a new pattern that adds a new dimension. I am fairly sure that artificial intelligence can help us do this. But I will stick with the very obvious proposition, that for the identification of dimensions and the identification of patterns of relations, that our problem remains information gathering of sufficient precision to identify relations, not a problem of humans identifying relations. In other words, we evolve conceptually very fast if we possess data that is obtained by tools, which is then reducible to analogy to experience such that we can create a mental model of it. This is why I think we misconceptualize the scientific method. The scientific method simply asks us to perform due diligence upon our testimony to reduce bias and error, and prevent deception. The rest of the discipline requires the custom development of increasingly precise and diverse tools for the process of inspection and measurement. IN this sense, I group ALL crafts together in the pursuit of truth of some sort, and then categorize the three forms of coercion gossip/moral, remuneration/trade, force/law, as the three dimensions of coercion and the one dimension of truth (craft). In other words, the scientific method is a MORAL set of rules that we can certainly impose as RULE OF LAW, enforcing those moral rules, and then as such all of us in all disciplines are bound by the scientific, moral, and legal constraint of truthfulness. And the we have only one discipline of knowledge(craft/investigation), and one of cooperation (negotiation/trade), and one of positive ambitions (gossip/rallying) and one of limits to those ambitions (force/law). I think this two axis view of social orders is probably about as close as we need for any analysis of human orders. Now, back to artificial intelligence, I tend to look at the problem the same way: – investigate/discover, (I would call this modeling rather than computation, just as I think Turing wanted computers to use ‘expensive’ logic rather than ‘cheap’ computation.) – fantasize (search for patterns) – (voluntary) trade, (search for opportunities) – limits (test our limits) And I would say that any artificial intelligence should possess those four ‘processors’, and only be introspectively AWARE of the results of those four. (It’s not as if the cpu is aware of the contents of the FPU for example. It just compares results.) In other words, just as we cannot observe our brainstem process, our physical movement processes, or our search (intuitionistic) processes, but only our RESULTS from those processes, then feed back those results for further processing (recursive searching) I suspect there is almost no VALUE in a general intelligence engaging in introspective observation and permutation. In fact I am almost certain that this is the definition of general intelligence. Now, there are two ways to handle limits. Either deny the observer (general intelligence) access to immoral, unethical, and illegal results, or weigh results so that it can ‘solve for’ (search for) methods of obtaining the same results by moral means; And there is a big difference between identifying opportunities (finding a search pattern) and constructing a plan. And plans (workflow processes) are a known problem. While as humans we prefer to work in nodes (deliverables or ‘jobs’. or lists,) because context switching is very hard for us and reduces the value of our general intelligence in performing tasks, computers do not have this problem and they can process many threads of ‘workflows’ in parallel. Because we can only concieve of what we can keep ‘echoing’ between our short and long term memories, To create a plan (a sequence of operations) any machine must produce some sort of data structure to accommodate it. We humans one of these structures as well but it is extremely limited – which is why we need numbers, writing, lists, sentences, paragraphs, stories, and plans. We actually repeat simple lists over and over in our imaginations in order to try to keep them. But machines do not have this problem of ‘losing context’ or discreet memory. So we can also regulate the execution of the plan since a plan must occur in sequence in time. So it’s possible to create a conscience or judge that regulates the plan (attempts to falsify the optimistic theory), and that has no other interest other than falsifying the optimistic theory (plan). And since unlike human minds, other machines can directly inspect the workings of another, it’s possible to police (bottom up) the theories (top down) of any aritficial general intelligence. So my view is this: (a) the funamental problem is one of data structures, not pattern finding. And that I believe that in order to be useful in any performance scenario, that these datastructures will be spatially n-dimensional, and searches will use pattern identification in n-dimensionsl pattners through them – identifying what’s missing as opportunity rather than what matches as ‘true’. (b) that language, and the network of symbols that they refer to, accurately can describe the universe. (c) that the four functions should be invisible to the consciousness that makes choices about which opportunities to explore (provides decidability). (d) that a separate ai should police the plans (workflow). (e) that it is unlikely that any intelligence with these constraints would infact be described as consious, but merely a very complex calculator. (f) Like the movie Memento I think the first dangerous problem of it is storing information outside itself, and providing incentives to use that info to reconstruct such a plan – given some motivation to do so. And like many other scenarios, the second dangerous problem is seeking to make people happy rather than seeking to solve problems that are requested of it. Any machine that tries to make us happy will eventually harm us. Because we will give it the same incentive as drugs give us. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Ending the Masquerades of Christianity and Democracy

    I think what we are seeing is the end to Aryanism masquerading as Christian universalism masquerading as democratic consumer capitalism, advanced under east coast puritanism, jeffersonian conservatism, jewish neoconservatism, jewish libertarianis, jewish socialism. And that we are returning to ‘what works for my people’ world wide. The jews are doing fine by way of white armies. 🙂 Just as whites have done fine by way of underclass armies.

  • Ending the Masquerades of Christianity and Democracy

    I think what we are seeing is the end to Aryanism masquerading as Christian universalism masquerading as democratic consumer capitalism, advanced under east coast puritanism, jeffersonian conservatism, jewish neoconservatism, jewish libertarianis, jewish socialism. And that we are returning to ‘what works for my people’ world wide. The jews are doing fine by way of white armies. 🙂 Just as whites have done fine by way of underclass armies.

  • Some Sequences

    DECEIT error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, overloading, propaganda, deception. CRIME murder, harm, damage, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, conversion(religion/pseudoscience), displacement(immigration/overbreeding), conquest (war). CONSISTENCY Aryanism > Christianity > Puritan Liberalism > Expansion/Colonialism > Hemispheric Colonialism > Liberalism > Anti-Communism > Social Democratic Consumer Capitalism > Neo-Conservatism

  • Some Sequences

    DECEIT error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, overloading, propaganda, deception. CRIME murder, harm, damage, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, conversion(religion/pseudoscience), displacement(immigration/overbreeding), conquest (war). CONSISTENCY Aryanism > Christianity > Puritan Liberalism > Expansion/Colonialism > Hemispheric Colonialism > Liberalism > Anti-Communism > Social Democratic Consumer Capitalism > Neo-Conservatism

  • The Great Lies Prevent Great Goods

    Big lies prevent big goods The fact that the distributions of abilities in all tribal and racial groups varies considerably does nothing to help us choose behavior. It is not as if the lower will agree to the demands of the higher or vice versa. However we can trade with each other and in this way cooperate. Yes it is probably true that the lower are more burdensome than the upper can compensate for. So there is a maximum difference in populations that can cooperate. Because at some point the difference is large enough that we can no longer find mutual beneficial exchanges. The only moral objective is to reduce the rates of reproduction of the lower end of the spectrum until the remainder of the tribe nation or race can cooperate with the higher end of the spectrum. The twentieth century has been an exercise in crippling the able in order to attempt to advance those who are unable. Whereas it would be preferable to create specific developmental programs that suit abilities rather than create falsehoods.