Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1546868605 Timestamp) Adolph spent a lot of time speaking in beer halls and adapting his manner method and content. The Beatles spent a lot of time playing in germany and adapting their style, method, and content. These are two ends of the spectrum of 10k hours. There is no substitute for continuous market testing. There is no substitute for testing your arguments. Welcome to the revolution…

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1546806967 Timestamp) —“Curt: what constitutes fight shooting vs target shooting?”— Target shooting is a way of keeping the cost down and continuing the tradition of riflemen upon which the USA is founded (as are the marines). But small arms today are absurdly effective, and the truth is that rifle rounds are the sort of ‘weapon that keeps on giving’ so to speak, in that they just keep going and going and going. Pistol rounds are, honestly, extremely effective at .380 and over, with all that mattering is the hit location, and rate of immobilization. Current 9mm semi autos are ‘almost’ idiot-proof, and carry 15+ rounds, and 30 if necessary. Pistols are easily concealed as are lots of extra magazines, and are wonderful indoors. Learning to ‘fight’ with a pistol like our ancestors did with swords (particularly fencing) is what policemen and swat teams are trained to do. (Not that I”m advocating gun-fu, which while interesting is just amusement.) See this example, starting on page 32. http://www.actiontarget.com/…/Advanced_Tactica_Handgun… ie: moving targets while you are moving, multiple targets, entry into spaces, shooting from wounded, shooting when down. shooting from cover vs concealment. reloading one handed. Normal everyday cop training. (PERSONAL: For me, I pretty much don’t do anything other than mozambique drills, double taps, while moving, and point-shooting. In fact, if I ever start teaching again I’m going to teach point shooting first, right after all the ‘don’t hurt yourself’ basics, and before anything else. My next handgun if I ever get the urge for another will be a ‘melted’ 9mm 1911 without sights.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547142603 Timestamp) —“What is it that we mean by “metaphysics”? Is it the reverse-engineering of human cognition? Is it really so useless to try to reverse-engineer the mind? I could accept something of the sort of: “doing metaphysics even of the sort of naturalistic inquiry that you profess requires the sort of social institutions or commons that would be too vulnerable to parasitism”.”— Adam Voight Short Answer: Metaphysics is looking for means of cheating. What I think we call metaphysics is the discipline of trying to create a fictional narrative that justifies our means of survival, competition, prospering, and signaling given our abilities, means, and conditions. So an ‘ontology” (paradigm) that ‘lets me get what I want’. Where my approach is ‘here is the paradigm’ now negotiate within it for what you want, don’t make an excuse that what you want is ‘good’ so that you can engage in all sorts of discounting (cheating). The rest of the ontologies (paradigms) are just networks on top of that base ontology (paradigm) of human action (perception, cognition, memory, calculation, speech, negotiation, action). Well, I mean I worked on AI, and now we have cognitive science, and we have language that expresses the content of the mind, so it’s pretty easy. I mean, I think I have a pretty good understanding of how the mind works, and I’ve come to understand it’s actually not complicated, it’s just an emergent phenomenon of enough hierarchical memory, and the devotion of so much of that memory to the continuous production of serialized speech so that we can negotiate cooperation with others, because cooperation produces such ridiculously outsized returns on calories that language and cooperation are more valuable than any other caloric expenditure. In my book I teach that the human body, intuition, and mind provide a the system of measurement we work with because it is all that we can work with because it is the only comparisons we are able to make – and that all language consists of measurements culminating in transactions. The question is only the precision of those measurements on the one hand, the correspondence of those measurements, and the ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in those measurements. I then use that system of measurement (operational language) to provide commensurability, and reframe all human experience, knowledge, and disciplines in that commensurable language. Then I document every known method of deflating language to produce increased precision and decreased opportunity for conflation. Then I document every known method of inflating language to engaging the masking of ignorance, and the generation of error, bias, and deceit. Then I account for costs. In other words the Metaphysics of Action turns out to be the only non-false model. The metaphysics of speech limited to action turns out to be the only non-false model. And the tests of costs whether at the physical or human level turns out to be the only non-false model. This turns out to be what we do in court already when prosecuting a crime. Which is why the west developed reason, empiricism, science: it all evolved out of our natural common law of sovereignty. The moment you base your cognitive hierarchy on sovereignty (the individual) then there is no conflation available by which to ignore costs. This sentence is very profound. if you base it on anything else you invite (make excuses for) the unaccountable, adn the undecidable, leaving room for authoritarian or communal calculation. This hierarchy of concepts is quite important really. It explains why so many thinkers went off the rails and why there is a proliferation of incommensurable ‘fictions’ in philosophy and theology and opinion. “How can I cheat others?” “How can I use cheating to rally large numbers of others?” “How can I use cheating and rallying large numbers to obtain power?” I see history as a few people trying to create truth and productivity, a lot of people lying and cheating, and a lot more trying to get by with the lies, cheating, and stealing that they can get away with in the current context. Because I study science and the law and economics and not philosophy ,theology, literature, or what passes for history but is largely propaganda.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547142603 Timestamp) —“What is it that we mean by “metaphysics”? Is it the reverse-engineering of human cognition? Is it really so useless to try to reverse-engineer the mind? I could accept something of the sort of: “doing metaphysics even of the sort of naturalistic inquiry that you profess requires the sort of social institutions or commons that would be too vulnerable to parasitism”.”— Adam Voight Short Answer: Metaphysics is looking for means of cheating. What I think we call metaphysics is the discipline of trying to create a fictional narrative that justifies our means of survival, competition, prospering, and signaling given our abilities, means, and conditions. So an ‘ontology” (paradigm) that ‘lets me get what I want’. Where my approach is ‘here is the paradigm’ now negotiate within it for what you want, don’t make an excuse that what you want is ‘good’ so that you can engage in all sorts of discounting (cheating). The rest of the ontologies (paradigms) are just networks on top of that base ontology (paradigm) of human action (perception, cognition, memory, calculation, speech, negotiation, action). Well, I mean I worked on AI, and now we have cognitive science, and we have language that expresses the content of the mind, so it’s pretty easy. I mean, I think I have a pretty good understanding of how the mind works, and I’ve come to understand it’s actually not complicated, it’s just an emergent phenomenon of enough hierarchical memory, and the devotion of so much of that memory to the continuous production of serialized speech so that we can negotiate cooperation with others, because cooperation produces such ridiculously outsized returns on calories that language and cooperation are more valuable than any other caloric expenditure. In my book I teach that the human body, intuition, and mind provide a the system of measurement we work with because it is all that we can work with because it is the only comparisons we are able to make – and that all language consists of measurements culminating in transactions. The question is only the precision of those measurements on the one hand, the correspondence of those measurements, and the ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in those measurements. I then use that system of measurement (operational language) to provide commensurability, and reframe all human experience, knowledge, and disciplines in that commensurable language. Then I document every known method of deflating language to produce increased precision and decreased opportunity for conflation. Then I document every known method of inflating language to engaging the masking of ignorance, and the generation of error, bias, and deceit. Then I account for costs. In other words the Metaphysics of Action turns out to be the only non-false model. The metaphysics of speech limited to action turns out to be the only non-false model. And the tests of costs whether at the physical or human level turns out to be the only non-false model. This turns out to be what we do in court already when prosecuting a crime. Which is why the west developed reason, empiricism, science: it all evolved out of our natural common law of sovereignty. The moment you base your cognitive hierarchy on sovereignty (the individual) then there is no conflation available by which to ignore costs. This sentence is very profound. if you base it on anything else you invite (make excuses for) the unaccountable, adn the undecidable, leaving room for authoritarian or communal calculation. This hierarchy of concepts is quite important really. It explains why so many thinkers went off the rails and why there is a proliferation of incommensurable ‘fictions’ in philosophy and theology and opinion. “How can I cheat others?” “How can I use cheating to rally large numbers of others?” “How can I use cheating and rallying large numbers to obtain power?” I see history as a few people trying to create truth and productivity, a lot of people lying and cheating, and a lot more trying to get by with the lies, cheating, and stealing that they can get away with in the current context. Because I study science and the law and economics and not philosophy ,theology, literature, or what passes for history but is largely propaganda.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547247420 Timestamp) We are the only gods. The vast majority of us are just afraid to accept the responsibility.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547247420 Timestamp) We are the only gods. The vast majority of us are just afraid to accept the responsibility.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547236535 Timestamp) Long Video Chat with Noah Revoy today on mentoring and coaching men.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547302842 Timestamp) by Bill Joslin Compatiblism – degrees of bounded freedom. It’s about accounting for the causal chain and if the actor contributes to the causal chain (opposed to a causal chain being proof of no will). We can contribute to our causal chain because we can imagine alternate states of affairs. In that imagining we affect the causal chain. So the effect of that imagining will be varied. You can imagine via nonsense or reason – post-structuralism or post-positivism, mysticism or naturalism. You can chose, but you can’t avoid the consequences of that choice, no matter how much you imagine the state of affairs to be different than it actually is.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547302842 Timestamp) by Bill Joslin Compatiblism – degrees of bounded freedom. It’s about accounting for the causal chain and if the actor contributes to the causal chain (opposed to a causal chain being proof of no will). We can contribute to our causal chain because we can imagine alternate states of affairs. In that imagining we affect the causal chain. So the effect of that imagining will be varied. You can imagine via nonsense or reason – post-structuralism or post-positivism, mysticism or naturalism. You can chose, but you can’t avoid the consequences of that choice, no matter how much you imagine the state of affairs to be different than it actually is.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547573671 Timestamp) Yes, conservatives(empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives are the population’s means of detecting and purging harm – the white blood cells of the social order and polity. Progressives (consumptivists) have low sensitivity to disgust, but high demand for consumption, novelty, experience, and fear of being ‘left behind’. That does not mean that our disgust sensitivity is always right. It means that we must test whether than harm actually exists by propertarian means. Obviously in pedophilia it does. In homosexuality, other than keeping it out of the commons, I don’t see how it does.