Curt Doolittle

Theme: Causality

  • THE PRINCIPLE PROBLEM SOLVED BY P There is nothing in psychology, sociology, eth

    THE PRINCIPLE PROBLEM SOLVED BY P

    There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs.

    Any theory in metaphysics, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy must be constructable from rational incentives to acquire some sort of discount or premium, or the theory is false. It’s no different from any other of the logics: all logic is falsificationary.

    The principle problem facing the transformation of linguistic (metaphysical), psychological,social, legal, political, economic, and military disciplines is a failure to adopt the full accounting in those disciplines using economic equilibration = entropy in the physical sciences.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 10:47:00 UTC

  • IT’S ALL RECIPROCITY … EXTENSION OF PHYSICAL LAWS TO HUMAN DISPLAY WORD AND DE

    IT’S ALL RECIPROCITY … EXTENSION OF PHYSICAL LAWS TO HUMAN DISPLAY WORD AND DEED

    While the principle innovation of P is Testimonialism, truthful testimony is merely reciprocity in speech. Agency is only possible under reciprocity. Trust is only possible under Reciprocity. Eugenia is only possible under Reciprocity. The foundation of P, the Natural Law of Reciprocity – is of course, just reciprocity: limiting one’s display word and deed to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality.

    So while the physical world is dependent upon entropy and it’s consequences in the laws of thermodynamics, life requires reciprocity across generations; and humans have memory and the ability to predict futures using it, and to act to seize opportunities from those predictions.

    But while cooperation is disproportionately productive (advantageous), and while we can trade debts, resulting in reciprocity over time, we can also consistently generate debts and live parasitically off others – until they retaliate (which they always do).

    Reciprocity breaks down through disintermediation that limits the ability to test whether the sum of debts and repayments result in a balance (reciprocity). And this is what the state has achieved in all walks of life under pursuit of equality. But the result has been reversal of the universalization of middle class manners ethics and morals, and the reversal of underclass eugenics.

    Humans can, through life, defeat entropy, and through productivity, continue to defeat it, despite our increasingly costly brains; but reverse that existence through the continuous production of debt (parasitism) rather than reciprocity (mutually beneficial production), and continuous eugenics.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 08:57:00 UTC

  • FAITH Faith is a fairly easy thing to explain. In other words we know what cause

    FAITH

    Faith is a fairly easy thing to explain. In other words we know what causes the feeling we call ‘spirituality’ and why it’s so influential to some and not at all to others. But we can’t introspect into it. So you can’t introspect into how you raise your arm. And you can’t introspect into the feeling you get from faith, but that doesn’t mean we cant explain how you raise your arm (I certainly can) or that we can’t explain the feeling of faith (I certainly can). It’s that the ‘magic’ is due to our inability to introspectively analyze it. There are some tricks we can use (visual illusions) to experiment with vision. There are similar tricks for spirituality. The feeling is not complicated. The free association we can conduct in that state is not complicated. And mastering the ability to freely associate emotionally by repetitive practice is not complicated. So whether you specialize in pre-rational emotion, pre-rational intuition, physical performance, or rational thought, or rational calculation, is just a matter of your ability and interest. And your developmental arc since that series is simply the developmental hierarchy. And just as there are many fragile points in your sexual development there are many fragile points in your social development there are also many fragile points in your cognitive development, and some of us are biased to the sensory, to the motor, to the social, to the verbal rational, and some to the calculative spatial.

    It’s not that faith isn’t an excellent way of developing mindfulness by supplying your own sedation. It’s not that the buddhist meditation and philosophy isn’t. Or the stoic. It’s that there are consequences (costs) for each of those methods and only the stoic produces your adaptation rather than avoidance.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 21:29:00 UTC

  • DISAMIBIGUATION … Confidence (Real, Self, High ) – I have confidence in … ..

    DISAMIBIGUATION

    … Confidence (Real, Self, High ) – I have confidence in …

    … … Belief (ideal, Consensus, Medium) – I believe …

    … … … Faith (supernatural, Authority, Low) – I have faith in …

    … … … … Conviction (Ideal, Self, Medium,) – My conviction…

    Confidence in evidence

    Belief in reason

    Faith in intuition

    Conviction in decision.

    I avoid the words belief and faith.

    I use:

    … ‘as far as I know’

    … ‘i can’t falsify’

    or

    … ‘it’s not decidable’

    … ‘it’s a preference or a good not a truth’

    I should also use:

    … ‘i have confidence in’

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 09:21:00 UTC

  • DISAMBIGUATION OF CAUSALITY IN RELIGIOSITY Three axis of Causality in Religion v

    DISAMBIGUATION OF CAUSALITY IN RELIGIOSITY

    Three axis of Causality in Religion vs Science. 1) Intelligence, 2) Empathizing vs Systematizing. 3) Degree of familial indoctrination in Religion vs Science.

    So The demarcation isn’t just IQ, but IQ and the Competition between Feminine Feeling vs Masculine Thinking. I was raised very catholic it simply ‘lost’ the battle just like religion won the battle for others – and everyone else somewhere in between.

    Yet among they thought leaders here, most of us have a religious background and far more people than you’d think have studied religion, or considered a religious career.

    So I don’t see a difference in our objectives, just means of achieving the masculine or feminine distribution.

    And the Pagan is definitely masculine – extremely and unapologetically, and some of us ‘feel’ the masculine not the feminine. Conversely Atheism is definitely a feminine cognitive expression.

    So as in nearly all our differences in understanding of the world, the question of religiosity is largely genetic and less so environmental, and the genetic difference is explicable as differences in one of the only substantial variables in the human brain: gender dimorphism.

    — Working On This —

    (Female)

    Reactionary Atheism (preference, monopoly)

    -v-

    Resistant Agnosticism (truth, markets)

    (Male)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 09:07:00 UTC

  • and to capture the difference to defeat entropy, in a process we call ‘life’

    and to capture the difference to defeat entropy, in a process we call ‘life’.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-10 15:17:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182314279694950405

    Reply addressees: @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182314180667416578

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JayMan471 Math isn’t complicated, it’s trivial. More trivial than the foundations of the universe, which is why we can measure the foundations of the universe and all that results from it until we approach sentience at which point the purpose of memory is to outwit those constant relations

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1182314180667416578

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JayMan471 Math isn’t complicated, it’s trivial. More trivial than the foundations of the universe, which is why we can measure the foundations of the universe and all that results from it until we approach sentience at which point the purpose of memory is to outwit those constant relations

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1182314180667416578

  • So the fundamental patterns of the universe are simply the consequence of differ

    So the fundamental patterns of the universe are simply the consequence of different ratios of the constant relations between different fundamental forces, which we can name with positional names, that we call numbers, and describe by changes in position in or across time.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-10 15:16:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182313961573814277

    Reply addressees: @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182313598904946690

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JayMan471 So we see patterns in the universe (forces, particles, elements, molecules, biological molecules, proteins, cell walls etc because the available ratios of those fundamental forces are limited in permutation. However, the permutations of each level of permutation increase.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1182313598904946690

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JayMan471 So we see patterns in the universe (forces, particles, elements, molecules, biological molecules, proteins, cell walls etc because the available ratios of those fundamental forces are limited in permutation. However, the permutations of each level of permutation increase.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1182313598904946690

  • So we see patterns in the universe (forces, particles, elements, molecules, biol

    So we see patterns in the universe (forces, particles, elements, molecules, biological molecules, proteins, cell walls etc because the available ratios of those fundamental forces are limited in permutation. However, the permutations of each level of permutation increase.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-10 15:15:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182313598904946690

    Reply addressees: @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182313177385766913

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JayMan471 3 -The physical universe makes use of a more complex grammar we call the fundamental forces. Those fundamental forces consist of constant relations to one another, and are expressible in the language of constant relations using unique names by positional naming.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1182313177385766913

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JayMan471 3 -The physical universe makes use of a more complex grammar we call the fundamental forces. Those fundamental forces consist of constant relations to one another, and are expressible in the language of constant relations using unique names by positional naming.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1182313177385766913

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/43534404_301571090439788_82627512461

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/43534404_301571090439788_8262751246180417536_o_301571087106455.jpg WHY DROP IN MURDER RATE?

    Sedentary education, Cheap High Fat Food, MSG, Marijuana, 100 years of accumulated entertainment media, Video Games, Free Online Pornography, Easy Sex:=>

    Obese, Sedated, Entertained, Low Testosterone, Low Sperm Count, Disenfranchised, Over-Incarcerated, System Monitored, Males.1 Year AgoOct 7, 2018, 1:25 PMWHY DROP IN MURDER RATE?

    Sedentary education, Cheap High Fat Food, MSG, Marijuana, 100 years of accumulated entertainment media, Video Games, Free Online Pornography, Easy Sex:=>

    Obese, Sedated, Entertained, Low Testosterone, Low Sperm Count, Disenfranchised, Over-Incarcerated, System Monitored, Males.Updated Oct 7, 2019, 11:24 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-07 11:24:00 UTC

  • Davis] This is an excellent example of marginal indifference in mental emotional

    http://nautil.us/issue/76/language/why-red-means-red-in-almost-every-language-rp@[532827021:2048:Joel Davis]

    This is an excellent example of marginal indifference in mental emotional and physical experiences.

    That we create narratives (fantasy narratives) to increase our scope of decidability within groups, by internally consistent systems of measurement (paradigms), doesn’t mean that the archetypes, plots, and patterns of rise and fall make vary whatsoever. They don’t. Period.

    All that matters is the competitive, <- cooperative, <- choice and < – sedative strategies embedded in the narrative.

    Just as hollywood has run out of narratives, and must devolve like every culture into increasingly complex series of rise and fall sequences, by increasingly complex combination of archetypes ( biases), leading eventually to either the richness of the hindo, or dead to the calcification of the abrahamic, or to the abandonment of the buddhist or stoic, these processes are deterministic and dependent upon easily identifiable variables.

    In other words forensic analysis (disambiguation, deflation, and operationalization) of every single mythology whether spiritual – occult -supernatural, magical-pseudoscientific, or allegorical-ideal-sophomoric, or simply (as we do in western literature) philosophy – essay – story – novel.

    The fact than one does not want to abandon his emotional satisfaction from experiencing those different philosophical sophomoric, pseudoscientific magical, and supernatural occult narratives, is no different from any other addiction. It’s just an addiction. Which is what buddhism negatively and the stoic-epicurean method positively seek to produce in REALITY not in imagination.

    Yes it is entirely possible to use narratives to create visions upon which people will coalesce because it presents a new set of paradigms, producing a new system of measurement, around which they can independently, without explicitly organization, coordinate their actions, toward a shared goal That is the purpose of all narratives whether at one or multiple points on the competitive< cooperative< choice and < sedative spectrum.

    And yes we can create those narratives in any of the grammars whether the most scientific or the most complete and extended conflation of occult, magical, sophomoric.

    But like there are only three weapons of influence (force-physical, ostracization-emotional, payment-intellectual), and only three sets of senses (physical, emotional, intellectual), there are only three means of circumventing reality: Magic (physical), occult (emotional) , sophomoric (intellectual), and there are only so many primary emotions (excitement-calm, reward-fear, dominance-submission), only three personality clusters (feminine-beta male, ascendent male (libertarian), and dominant male (conservative), and only so many personality traits derived from them (maybe 4-6), only so many archetypes that can be derived from them (maybe a dozen), and only one root narrative (rise -fall in some combination), and only so many plots (at most 30 or so).

    In other words, there is no narrative that any human being can compose for the purposes of providing a paradigm for individual, group, or national action, that is not reducible to a very simple strategy of acquisition using those variables.

    So when you say I have no theory, it’s simply not true. Its the most precise, fullly accounted theory ever developed and the reason is simply because the 20th gave us so man y political failures, but it gave us information as the unit of measurement for modeling all of the universe, it gave us programming(directed) and AI(self organizing), it gave us cognitive science, and it gave us biochemistry, and genetics.

    And sorry but my work is built upon nothing but entropy upward competing with evidence top down.

    And i know it is humiliating for sophists (verbalists) who concieve of the world verbally, as it is for occultists who concieve of the world emotionally, but this is the story of our evolution of knowledge: the incremental reduction of ignorance by the incremental increase in the precision of measurement of categories, by reducing them to sets of constant relations coherent, consistent, correspondent, and existentially possible, in the universe under those deterministic rules we call realism, naturalism, and operationalism

    http://nautil.us/issue/76/language/why-red-means-red-in-almost-every-language-rpUpdated Oct 4, 2019, 11:44 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 11:44:00 UTC