Curt Doolittle

Theme: Causality

  • VIA NEGATIVA, STARTING WITH TIME Once you understand that I’ve based all of huma

    VIA NEGATIVA, STARTING WITH TIME

    Once you understand that I’ve based all of human action on saving time, or rather increasing the caloric returns on time, then you have some chance of grasping the importance of the use of disruptive heroic virtue signals, profiting from rule, and underclass culling that permitted the west to innovate FASTER than the rest, despite never being first.

    The use of Via-Negativa is so important yu cannot imagine until you’ve been working with it for a few years. We make the world better by elimination. A process of elimination. We progress by eliminating impediments.

    Start thinking of eliminating murder, harm, damage, theft, fraud, fraud by disinformation, externalization, free riding, conspiracy of common interest, conspiracy of common intent, fictionalism and disinformation, conversion, immigration, over-reproduction, financialization (warfare), economic warfare, military warfare, displacement, and ethnocide.

    Then start thinking of eliminating ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit.

    When you eliminate the bad, we need only choose from the good. Make room for the market for goods, by eliminating the markets for bads.

    It’s not that complicated, it’s just the opposite of what we’ve been taught for all of human history.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 08:50:00 UTC

  • Research, Reproduction, Interpretation, and Integration are different skill sets

    Research, Reproduction, Interpretation, and Integration are different skill sets. I never trust any correlative rather than causal data.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 00:54:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866094691850358784

    Reply addressees: @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866040737317736448

    IN REPLY TO:

    @JayMan471

    No. Because you should *never* trust scientists to interpret their data if you want to really know for yourself. https://t.co/QgOQZDKYXV

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/866040737317736448

  • (from elsewhere) (a) we can possess narratives (not recipes, or measurements) th

    … (from elsewhere)

    (a) we can possess narratives (not recipes, or measurements) that describe causal relations that manufacture ignorance

    .

    (b) AFAIK the meaning of this statement is that there is a difference between the unknown proper, the incorrect, and the correspondent and consistent.

    (c) Set operations are limited in utility. Empirical analysis allows us to search for possible operations (first causes). And so it is operations not set statements that provide information lacking in set statements. This is why the linguistic century has been a waste of time. A puzzle not a problem. We like set statements because they’re cheap. We like apriori arguments because they’re cheap. But both constitute special cases. The universe at all scales consists of a set of constant operations (transformations). And doubling-down, on sets, is no different from doubling down on religion, is no different from doubling down on empiricism: when instead we need additional information eliminating greater fields of error, by increasing the tool set we are using, rather than attempting to use a more primitive tool (analogy, reason, rationalism, set operations, empirical measurement, possible operations) to provide information unavailable to that tool set.

    (d) Ergo, I view each method from the the analogy, to syllogism all the way to the formula, then to the algorithm as methods of ignorance expansion when we attempt to apply them to questions requiring greater precision than the method permits.

    (e) instead, we can use each method as a means of assisting us in free association by which we generate hypotheses that can be tested by the next method of greater precision, and with each increase in information provided by each increase in precision we can form continuous new free associations until at some point we have found the first causes (operations) that are possible.

    (f) Ergo, I don’t think too much of philosophy or philosophers, when what they mean by that is ‘application of rational techniques’ rather than application of ALL techniques.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-09 10:40:00 UTC

  • The Relationships Within The Hierarchy of Laws

    THE RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE HIERARCHY OF LAWS 1) Laws of Nature: Equilibria: The DISCOVERY of which is the subject of physical science. We can know the first causes of the deterministically equilibrial universe – but we cannot sense them without extensive work. 2) Laws of Man: man is an expensive organism fighting the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity, and must act to acquire, and in acting to acquire, acts rationally (to ensure returns – in the greatest return for the least effort, in the shortest time, with the greatest degree of certainty at the lowest risk); and in acting rationally, must conserve physical, emotional, and mental energy, and expend physical, emotional, and mental effort; and can choose to cooperate with others, prey upon others, or boycott others at all times; and may make use of violence, remuneration, or gossip(lauding/shaming), to do so. 2) Natural Law: Non-Parasitism, leaving Reciprocity as the only possible action, because only by non parasitism do we produce the incentive to cooperate rather than prey upon, retaliate against, or boycott. We can know the first cause of reciprocity through direct observation, and we do know it. We cannot implement reciprocity without extensive work (institutions) which allow us to concentrate our forces. 3) Natural RIghts: The methods of insuring natural law, by an insurer of last resort (militia, military, judiciary, monarchy). We cannot implement those institutions without rules by which institutions may enact processes, independently of subjective opinion. 4) Property in toto: the means of commensurability (measurement) between our actions: changes in state of property in toto exist in reality (laws of nature), limited by the abilities of man’s action (laws of man), violate or do not violate reciprocity (rule of law), and are insured or not insured by institutions (natural rights), and can be measured or not measured by changes in property in toto. FRAMING: Laws of Nature > (limits of, methods of transformation) … Laws of Man > limits of, methods of action) … … Laws of Cooperation > (limits of and methods of cooperation.) … … … Laws of Information > ( limits of and methods true Speech) … … … … Laws of Sentience > (limits and methods of ‘thinking’)

  • The Relationships Within The Hierarchy of Laws

    THE RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE HIERARCHY OF LAWS 1) Laws of Nature: Equilibria: The DISCOVERY of which is the subject of physical science. We can know the first causes of the deterministically equilibrial universe – but we cannot sense them without extensive work. 2) Laws of Man: man is an expensive organism fighting the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity, and must act to acquire, and in acting to acquire, acts rationally (to ensure returns – in the greatest return for the least effort, in the shortest time, with the greatest degree of certainty at the lowest risk); and in acting rationally, must conserve physical, emotional, and mental energy, and expend physical, emotional, and mental effort; and can choose to cooperate with others, prey upon others, or boycott others at all times; and may make use of violence, remuneration, or gossip(lauding/shaming), to do so. 2) Natural Law: Non-Parasitism, leaving Reciprocity as the only possible action, because only by non parasitism do we produce the incentive to cooperate rather than prey upon, retaliate against, or boycott. We can know the first cause of reciprocity through direct observation, and we do know it. We cannot implement reciprocity without extensive work (institutions) which allow us to concentrate our forces. 3) Natural RIghts: The methods of insuring natural law, by an insurer of last resort (militia, military, judiciary, monarchy). We cannot implement those institutions without rules by which institutions may enact processes, independently of subjective opinion. 4) Property in toto: the means of commensurability (measurement) between our actions: changes in state of property in toto exist in reality (laws of nature), limited by the abilities of man’s action (laws of man), violate or do not violate reciprocity (rule of law), and are insured or not insured by institutions (natural rights), and can be measured or not measured by changes in property in toto. FRAMING: Laws of Nature > (limits of, methods of transformation) … Laws of Man > limits of, methods of action) … … Laws of Cooperation > (limits of and methods of cooperation.) … … … Laws of Information > ( limits of and methods true Speech) … … … … Laws of Sentience > (limits and methods of ‘thinking’)

  • It’s Not That Hard…

    IT’S NOT THAT HARD. Nearly all my arguments are constructed by definitions, use of sequences to de-conflate those definitions, and fullaccounting of the fully chain of actions and consequences. I rarely have to resort to operational grammar except in those definitions. If you use full accounting you will skew to operational gammar out of necessity of simply trying to write cogent sentences. I cant keep track of all of you any longer. There are simply too many. But I do see property in toto, operational language and full accounting creeping into all sorts of your posts and comments. It’s infectious. It will change you forever – for the better.

  • It’s Not That Hard…

    IT’S NOT THAT HARD. Nearly all my arguments are constructed by definitions, use of sequences to de-conflate those definitions, and fullaccounting of the fully chain of actions and consequences. I rarely have to resort to operational grammar except in those definitions. If you use full accounting you will skew to operational gammar out of necessity of simply trying to write cogent sentences. I cant keep track of all of you any longer. There are simply too many. But I do see property in toto, operational language and full accounting creeping into all sorts of your posts and comments. It’s infectious. It will change you forever – for the better.

  • Next, Coincidence-ism?

    The next evolution after operationalism will be something on the order of ‘coincidence-ism’, where we explore the emergent patterns that evolve from different sized sets of different sized constant relations. Mythology, Supernaturalism, Theology, philosophy, empiricism, science, operationalism, coincidence-ism, and that will lead us to some sort of macro-determinism.

    • OLD: Theological > Metaphysical > Positive
    • 20thC. Supernatural(Anthropocentric) > Rational(ideal) > Scientific (Descriptive).
    • 21stC: Fictionalism, Rationalism, Empiricism, Operationalism.

    or or

  • Next, Coincidence-ism?

    The next evolution after operationalism will be something on the order of ‘coincidence-ism’, where we explore the emergent patterns that evolve from different sized sets of different sized constant relations. Mythology, Supernaturalism, Theology, philosophy, empiricism, science, operationalism, coincidence-ism, and that will lead us to some sort of macro-determinism.

    • OLD: Theological > Metaphysical > Positive
    • 20thC. Supernatural(Anthropocentric) > Rational(ideal) > Scientific (Descriptive).
    • 21stC: Fictionalism, Rationalism, Empiricism, Operationalism.

    or or

  • Differences Between Civilizations

    THE CAUSAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS Let me help you. Your civilization will advance or stagnate or die by the single criteria of the available vehicles for males to compete in order to increase their status and therefore position in the dominance hierarchy, and therefore attraction to women for sex and men for followers and opportunities to exploit. There is a very good reason that distance from the point of geographic origin provides an increase in median intelligence. In all of human history, exit is the only means of preventing regression toward the mean. Let me help you. higher latitude, distance from water, and heterogeneity of peoples, work against your civilization. Europe was easier for warrior aristocracy to colonize. the levant worse. Diversity is your enemy. Cool climes, proximity to water and waterways, and a homogeneity of people improve your chances. The only means of preventing regression to the mean is the culling of the underclasses. Exit, Distance, Climate, Manorialism, can no longer defend us. Western Civilization let pandora out, more so than urbanization.