Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • LOGIC: A SEQUENCE OF HUMAN ACTIONS : THE ONLY MORAL LOGIC This is where I’ve end

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-constructive/CONSTRUCTIVE LOGIC: A SEQUENCE OF HUMAN ACTIONS : THE ONLY MORAL LOGIC

    This is where I’ve ended up thanks to Constructive Mathematics (Intuitionism, Intuitional Mathematics, Neointuitionism).

    Logic: I apply the same requirement of operational language (strict construction) to logic – the logic of language. Of all the logics, the logic of language is the most misleading. I have the most work to do here. Much to the disappointment of practitioners of formal logic. Most of the mistakes I have come across (particularly in critical rationalism) are caused by erroneous elimination of action from that which depends upon action.

    Math: In mathematics – the logic of names, numbers and relations. This work has been done by the generations before me. They just have not had the moral criticism I have given them as an argumentative weapon before in their attack on ‘magical’ mathematics.

    Physics: It’s already present in the canons of science, and is already universally applied in physics – the logic of causality. There is very little work to be done here other than to cast some branches of physics as non-logical as currently stated.

    Cooperation: I apply the same argument to the logic of cooperation (ethics). Ethics was the easiest problem to solve by the requirement for operational language (strict constructionism).

    i) The world is real, our actions are likewise real within that world.

    ii) There is only one MORAL and ETHICAL epistemological method, and that is the scientific method – or ‘the method’.

    iii) We have invented multiple methodologies of logic that help us isolate certain properties within this method.

    iv) Statements produced by this method are ‘theories’.

    v) Some theories can be logically treated axiomatically even though they are not in fact axioms but theories.

    Knowledge of use is not equal to knowledge of construction.

    MOTIVATIONS: ELIMINATION OF LOADING, FRAMING, DECEPTION, OBSCURANTISM, AND PSEUDOSCIENCE FROM POLITICAL DISCOURSE.

    Law is but another logic. Politics is discourse on law. There is no logical specialization to citizenship save the logic of cooperation and even that specialization will forever be above the masses. If we are to eliminate deception from political discourse, we must eliminate it in all the logics. I was not correct that immorality in language originated with mathematics. Only that mathematical legitimacy was used as a means for expanding pseudoscience.

    Just because something is convenient, if it is immoral, it remains immoral. Obscurantism, platonism, and use without comprehension of construction, are all forms of deception that insert magic and religion into the world.

    Most of these conveniences are easy means of compensating for the problem of reducing any ‘computation’ into the two or three second window of human cognitive ability. However, as long as we can construct from operations, any entity, we can forever use the name of that construction as a function – giving us a shorthand for it that fits within our cognitive window.

    I am sorry for labeling conveniences and contrivances as immoral, despite the cherished mythos that philosophers, logicians and mathematicians have warmed themselves in against the cold of realism. But no one else has yet attacked platonism as immoral. And I’ve done it I think pretty conclusively.

    If you can purvey platonism, then others can equally claim to purvey mysticism, obscurantism, pseudoscience, loading and framing. Because if utility is the only tests, then religion is clearly superior to rational politics, and pseudoscience an effective means of governing (keynesianism), and the mind finds greater comfort in loading, framing, conflation and justifying, than it does in grasping objective reality.

    Sorry, but if you can’t construct it, you don’t understand it. And the reason you don’t understand it is probably a cover for a lie.

    Certainly that’s what’s happened in math and logic. Most of philosophy, continental in particular is deception. Justification. Lie.

    The only moral statements are those under strict construction.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-28 12:45:00 UTC

  • RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS Doing something unsolicited for someone who appreciates

    RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS

    Doing something unsolicited for someone who appreciates it immensely is one of those feelings that is hard to exceed in life.

    If you get that look of awe, and a handshake or hug in exchange, it’s all the return that’s necessary.

    A lot of things people care about (a new, or even ‘newer’ battery for a car, or a set of tires, or a very-used-iPhone to replace an ordinary cell) are things some of us don’t care about at all.

    So, if you are searching for hugs and handshakes in exchange for making a major difference in the l lives of others – at little cost and effort, and you don’t see opportunities all around you, then you’re not in an environment where there exists a double-coincidence of wants.

    The only people who are ‘not good’ in this world are the self righteous. Make life more hell for them at every opportunity. (Marxists)

    Otherwise the vast majority of people in the world are pretty good – often misguided, misinformed, ignorant or superstitious.

    Its worth treating them that way.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-23 13:15:00 UTC

  • Don, How does one know when he has transitioned from conscious incompetence to u

    Don,

    How does one know when he has transitioned from conscious incompetence to unconscious competence?

    If the mirror always lies, them we can always outwit the mirror. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-23 10:16:00 UTC

  • HOW MUCH LONGER WILL YOU TRUST YOUR LIBERTY TO YOUR FELLOW MAN? Your fellow men

    HOW MUCH LONGER WILL YOU TRUST YOUR LIBERTY TO YOUR FELLOW MAN?

    Your fellow men and women do not desire liberty. They desires consumption, status, and ease.

    Liberty requires great expense, revolt against the masses, and constant diligence.

    The source of liberty is the organize application of violence to deny access to others, that which you have labored to obtain by voluntary means.

    The left’s irrational utopian vision is no worse than the rothbardian irrational libertarian utopia.

    Aristocratic egalitarians invented liberty.

    And the manufactured it with organized violence.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-19 09:33:00 UTC

  • VICTORY!!!! WHOOT. (personal) (philosophy) (innovation) I figured it out!!!! (It

    VICTORY!!!! WHOOT.

    (personal) (philosophy) (innovation)

    I figured it out!!!! (It pays to keep at a problem until you solve it.)

    As the author of (many) shareholder agreements, and participant in (many) lawsuits I have always been troubled by the structure of law. I’ve always intuited the problem. But it never quite got to the answer.

    I knew the golden rule and the silver rule contained a hint at that answer but I couldn’t quite figure out why. Until now.

    Last year I worked on the problem of platonism. I knew the answer was in mathematical philosophy. I just had to master it.

    This year I’m working on formal logic. What are the grammar, syntax, rules, and method for the formal logic of cooperation (ethics and politics)?

    By about 2010, living in Ottawa, I was able to understand, loosely, the human cognitive problems in converting an intuitive and normative discourse rhetoric of ethics, into a formal and calculative logic of ethics.

    I outlined the propertarian method of analysis. But there was this enormous hole in it. It was descriptive alone. How does one construct ETHICAL law as theory? Meaning, how does one construct law while prohibiting in voluntary transfer? And how does one construct a process by which the ethical rules cannot be violated by ‘linguistic means’.

    Since all law is theory, but the costs of those theories are very high, how do you construct law as theory open to revision without corruption? The scientific method emerged from science, but the method of science is applicable to all human epistemology, not just science. So the scientific method is just ‘the method of constructing theories both logically and ethically’.

    The common law and conservatism are both ‘scientific’ in the sense that their theories are open to constant revision by evidence. But as we have seen from the american constitution, that the constitution was too poorly constructed to resist attacks.

    So how do we construct a constitution (theory of law) that is subject to the same constraints as ‘the method’ that we call the scientific method?

    The truth is that the founders did include a process: the modification of the constitution by procedural means. But the differences between the interests of the states was so great that it exceeded the respect for the constitution.

    The Louisiana purchase made those differences in tolerable since it would have meant the conquest of one society by the other (the south would have conquered the north via political process) the north retaliated with war – over territory.

    Then upon immigration of large numbers of catholics and jews from lower trust societies, and the inclusion of women into the voting pool as equal to heads of absolute nuclear households and businesses, the constitution was broken – first by the introduction of the fed and credit money, then by the depression that resulted from the combination.

    So the existing law was not well enough articulated such that it was not open to ‘hermeneutic interpretation’, and outright assault.

    How does one construct ethical theories in formal logic of cooperation?

    How does one construct law from formal ethical logic of cooperation?

    It’s fascinating. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 07:17:00 UTC

  • FWIW: We human beings operate by status signals more so than any other thing tha

    FWIW: We human beings operate by status signals more so than any other thing that we covet.

    Loss aversion is a strong instinct. loss aversion by ‘theft, cheating and free riding’ is stronger still. But of all the things we covet most, and and are most adverse to loss, status is the greatest – often more so than our kin.

    It is the redistribution of earned status that produces agitation on one end, and a reaction to the relative lack of status at the other end.

    Progressives use the best of all worlds: the don’t bear many children, they earn high incomes, and they obtain their status using other people’s money.

    Whereas a middle class business owner, or upper middle class professional, cannot devote his earnings to increasing the number of his children, increasing his comfort in retirement, nor transferring his accumulated wealth to his family.

    Meanwhile, others gain status merely by appropriating and redistributing the product of his efforts.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-14 11:36:00 UTC

  • SOME OF THE “FIRST PROBLEMS” OF PHILOSOPHY 1) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY “W

    SOME OF THE “FIRST PROBLEMS” OF PHILOSOPHY

    1) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY

    “Why do we not commit suicide?”

    2) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF POLITICS

    “Why should I not kill you and take your stuff?”

    3) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF COOPERATION

    “How can we prevent free riding?”

    4) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF DIVISION OF LABOR

    “How do we determine who controls which resource?”

    5) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF FAMILY STRUCTURE

    “How do we organize reproduction, child rearing and inheritance in the current means of production?”

    6) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF INTER-FAMILIAL COOPERATION (community)

    “Why should a woman be free to bear children that they cannot support, and place the burden for them upon others without their consent?”

    7) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF INTER-COMMUNITY COOPERATION (economy)

    “what is are the universal moral rules we must observe to successfully cooperate with all other groups?”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-13 09:30:00 UTC

  • DEMONSTRATED PRACTICAL INTELLIGENCE Demonstrated practical intelligence is deter

    DEMONSTRATED PRACTICAL INTELLIGENCE

    Demonstrated practical intelligence is determined by the following properties:

    GENETIC

    1) (g) or General Intelligence (and it’s distribution between faculties)

    2) Short term memory (my weakness)

    CHOICE

    3) General Knowledge (the amount of it that you have – more is better)

    4) Correspondence of Wants with Reality (wanting the possible)

    INCENTIVES

    And the incentives provided by:

    5) Existing Paradigmatic Correspondence with reality.

    6) Existing Paradigmatic rewards (Academic Paradigm, Status Signals, Economic Rewards)

    That’s the answer.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-09 16:32:00 UTC

  • CAN WE DEVELOP A PILL FOR NEURO AND SYNAPTOGENESIS? What if we can encourage neu

    CAN WE DEVELOP A PILL FOR NEURO AND SYNAPTOGENESIS?

    What if we can encourage neurogenesis and synaptogenesis? Can we break the brain size problem?

    Not just anti-depressants, but nootropics: increasing synaptogenesis and neurogenesis. Or conversely, discovering what is prohibiting ITGB3 and necessary synaptogenesis and neurogenesis?

    –“..in order to make up for the lull in SER.T, more ITGB3 is produced, which then goes to work in bolstering synaptogenesis and neurogenesis, the true culprits behind depression. “There are many studies proposing that antidepressants act by promoting synaptogenesis and neurogenesis,” Gurwitz says. “Our work takes one big step on the road for validating such suggestions.”–

    (from David Gurwitz and Noam Shomron , Tel Aviv University in Israel)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-09 06:52:00 UTC

  • PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY AND MORAL PROFILING Just realized that I have to add a

    PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY AND MORAL PROFILING

    Just realized that I have to add a bit of psychology to Propertarianism. Right now I address the different moral biases as reproductive strategies. And I think that’s a baked cake. I also addressed the IQ over 105 issue. I also addressed the Pareto distribution (Power Curve) problem.

    But I haven’t addressed the Solipsism – Autism issue. And I haven’t addressed their opposite: the ability to CORRECTLY empathize with various world views. And I think propertarianism allows us to do that pretty concretely.

    Now, I can’t often read facial expressions well (mild face blindness). And my range of emotion is probably narrower (although amplified). But I can understand almost any feelings that are verbally articulated. So maybe this gives me a little advantage. I simply can’t intuit all that much unless I work at it. So I got good at working at it. (Probably because I still want to be accepted just as much as any other person does.)

    MORAL PROFILING RATHER THAN PERSONALITY PROFILING

    We used to take personality tests. And I think those are useful. But since MOST OF OUR BEHAVIOR is MORAL, and our moral actions more active, then we should TEST FOR MORAL COMPASS not so much as test for personality.

    Personality matters WITHIN your moral compass, and sure, your personality influences your choice of moral compass, but if the truth be told, I would rather understand your moral (and political) interests if I debate with you. And I would rather understand your personality if I have to WORK with you. Those are two different things.

    PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY

    Owen Flanagan (FB: owen.flanagan), who is still my favorite ethicist proposed a list of questions that any philosophical psychology should answer. I have, I think, successfully answered all his questions in Propertarianism. It was a good test to subject my work to. And his challenge was priceless in that regard.

    I think that both the study of Morals by Haidt, and the study of cognitive biases by Kahneman have settled the biological, and evolutionary biological, causes. I think I have done the job of completing ethics pretty thoroughly. I might have (although I’m not sure) settled the problem of epistemology as well by solving ethics. Although it’s a bit hard for others to grasp right now that we may be morally accountable for our spoken words.

    But we are still plagued by universalism – “one-ness” from consent, rather than one-ness from cooperation. Both the anglo enlightenment, “aristocracy of everyone” and the continental enlightenment “priesthood of everyone” or french “proletariat of everyone”. Whereas, under the monarchies, there was no ‘everyone’. There were many tribes. And that was a better political model than “seizing government to make an ‘everyone’”.

    I’m going to see what I can find on mixing personality profiles and moral profiles. That ought to be interesting.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 14:45:00 UTC