Curt Doolittle

Theme: Causality

  • MACRO ECONOMIC PHENOMENON ARE EMERGENT AND NON DEDUCIBLE Macro economic phenomen

    MACRO ECONOMIC PHENOMENON ARE EMERGENT AND NON DEDUCIBLE

    Macro economic phenomenon are emergent, not deducible. They are often explainable. And the discipline of macro economics attempts to explain those phenomenon. Yet many phenomenon are still not yet explainable. Although rapid increase in economics in the past twenty years has improved the field dramatically.

    Any given price for example, is often not explainable. Nor did we nor could we have deduced the stickiness of prices. Nor can we deduce the time frame of phenomenon.

    It is true for example that in the long run, money may be neutral, but that does not mean that interference in the supply of money cannot be used to create beneficial temporary advantages even if they are neutralized over time.

    It is true that unemployment will increase with minimum wages, but the reasons for this are not those proposed by cosmopolitan-Austrians. They are because people lose the possibility of entry into the work force when they are young and become permanently unemployable. Empirical evidence does not support the assumption that minor increases are statistically meaningful. Only that, say, in the french model, do we see statistically meaningful permanent unemployment.

    So, emergent phenomenon are not deducible. They are instrumentally and empirically observable. And once observed may be explained by deduction. But this is indifferent from physical phenomenon, where phenomenon are emergent.

    But to say that we can deduce all economic activity – all human action – from first principles is demonstrably false. We cannot.

    To say that we can deduce all mathematical phenomenon, logical phenomenon, physical phenomenon from first principles is demonstrably false.

    At scale, beyond our perceptions, we must rely upon empirical evidence for observation, instrumentation to obtain that evidence, and deduction to theorize the construction of those phenomenon.

    The false-flag, straw-man argument against empiricism, states that we must be able to run tests, thereby constructing data sets, rather than merely observe phenomenon and explain that phenomenon. But science does not practice empiricism. It practices the scientific method. And physical science takes this experimental approach only to discover first principles, not to analyze emergent phenomenon. Red shift is not something we need to create conditions for, it is something we must simply observe.

    Conversely, experimentally constructed evidence is LESS reliable than naturally occurring evidence. So experimentation is a means of creating conditions for observation. Observation is what is required for analysis.

    Likewise, we do not need to discover the first principles of man, but we must discover and explain the emergent phenomenon of man’s actions.

    And even in those cases where we can construct a very loose economic principle, that does not mean that we cannot take action to alter the interstitial conditions and conduct experiments upon how we can effect those conditions and for how long. The Keynesian argument is that even if the Austrian business cycle is true, the good obtained in the interim is worth the risk, because states under fiat currency – unless they overextend by war and shock – cannot fail and become insolvent.

    In any and all cases of the anti-scientific arguments put forth by the rothbardian rationalists I will easily demonstrate that each case is a straw man argument.

    Because that is the technique of Critique: the marxist and cosmopolitan device of creating a straw man argument that is sufficiently obscurant that it is possible to load, frame, and overload the average, and even above average human mind.

    It is the greatest form of deception ever constructed by man.

    While we can look back in awe at monotheism as a great deception for the purpose of imposing authoritarian rule – despite its absurdity. And while we can look back in awe at how successful the marxists were. We can also grasp that libertinism (the cosmopolitan wing of Austrian economics) is yet another instance of the same technique: create an unbelievable lie, repeat it, and defend it with straw men. Libertinism is merely cosmopolitan separatism in new dress. It didnt’ work, it wont work, and it can’t work.

    Libertines cannot hold land. And he who holds land determines the basis of law. That is an inescapable law of human action.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-23 01:14:00 UTC

  • THE GREEKS SET US ON A PATH. Math isn’t the ideal, economics is. The reason we g

    THE GREEKS SET US ON A PATH. Math isn’t the ideal, economics is.

    The reason we got hooked on deduction was mathematics. In math, the means of exploration (mathematical operations) and the means of testing (mathematical operations) are the same (except in very rare circumstances).

    The greeks ran with this. And we followed.

    The problem is, (as Popper showed us) this convenience in mathematics is an exception due to the simplicity of mathematical operations, and is not a rule. Whereas, in every other field we must use guesses (induction) to arrive at hypotheses, then criticize them for internal consistency(logic), external correspondence(testing), existence (operations), and scope (falsification).

    We test our words to be free of imagination (logic), we test our correspondence with reality to be free of imagination (actions) we test our premises to be free of imagination (operations) and we test our conclusions to be free of imagination (Falsification). (still working on how to say this bit, and not quite there yet.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-21 11:00:00 UTC

  • Truth is not found in your means of discovery, but once found, in your reconstru

    Truth is not found in your means of discovery, but once found, in your reconstruction of the discovery from necessary consequences of available operations.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-22 02:08:00 UTC

  • CONVERTING THE EXPERIENTIAL TO THE OPERATIONAL TO THE CAUSAL (deep)(example of w

    CONVERTING THE EXPERIENTIAL TO THE OPERATIONAL TO THE CAUSAL

    (deep)(example of why we need operationalism and propertarianism)

    What is the definition of a ‘market’?

    Peeling away layers of human intellectual crutches to find the truth.

    My point is to question whether:

    1) Norm (reduction of transaction costs),

    2) Location (actually: density necessary to decrease opportunity costs), and;

    3) Exchange (actually the transfer of control according to normative rules sufficient to decrease transaction costs);

    In which exchange assumes:

    4) property, and property assumes family structure, and family structure assumes inheritance, and all of which assume division of labor, which in turn assumes a population, and structure of production available to it.

    So, just as an example, why isn’t the definition of a market a set of normative habits, that are the results of the structure of production, and the structure of the family, in relation to the nearby competitors, that encourage people to act and engage in distributed production and consumption, by reducing production costs through division of labor, opportunity costs through proximity and transaction costs through consensus rituals, such that production is rational to engage in, despite the ever decreasing knowledge of particulars, and increasing dependence upon prices alone?

    Something of that nature.

    I think what has been troubling me is the state-fulness ( not as in corporeal but as in fixed properties at a position in time) rather than the conditions that must be overcome in order for us to participate in rational action when we possess so little information.

    And I am trying to figure out how to capture the causal properties rather than the mere names of observations. We humans are fascinated by experiences, but we possess those experiential stimuli because it is necessary for us to acquire, and helpful for us to acquire through cooperation. So any experiential definition is circular. What then, is the cause prior to our experience?

    Reduction of production costs, reduction of opportunity costs, reduction of transaction costs, and through reduction of those costs we act according to the least effort to us.

    Our experiences merely reward us for the exploitation of, and construction of the means, of such cost reductions.

    WE JUST FOLLOW GRAVITY.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 09:46:00 UTC

  • The Spectrum of Terms for Impulsivity

    [P]reference is a choice. Demonstrated time preference (useful for the economic concept of interest but not scientific in that it’s causally descriptive) appears to be largely genetic, and is determined by what we consider the ‘frustration budget’:our ability to suppress the urge for gratification.

    So the terms, Impulsivity, frustration budget (tolerance), and time preference represent three portions of the impulsivity spectrum. Where the lower our impulsivity, the higher our tolerance for frustration, and the greater our willingness to persist a desire for a long term goal, each represent our social classes.

    As such to discuss time preference outside of the impulsively scale is to attribute to choice that which is no more available to choice than rational thought is to the solipsist, empathy is to the autistic, or operational calculation using abstract rules of deduction is to the imbecile.

    The language of libertinism is rife with upper middle class economic loading and framing: attributing to choice that which is not, in order to perpetuate the fallacy that liberty is a rational preference and choice, rather than the reproductive strategy of an elite minority and the social outcasts that follow them in hopes of status seeking. Instead, science: empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and performative truth attempts to explain all phenomenon in least loaded and framed (if not least obscurant) terms.

    It is for this reason that the language of science is the language of the spoken and written truth, and rationalism must always be suspect, because the majority of outright lies, pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience have been told in rational language.

    So while rationalists say that something is possible or may be possible, science merely demonstrates that rationalism is de facto the optimum means of lying invented by man.

    And the 20th century as Hayek proposed, was merely the high point of cosmopolitan pseudoscience, precisely because those with lesser abilities relied upon rationalism rather than science. And they did so because it was profitable to lie: see various quotes by and about Marx and Keynes.

    Praxeology can be repaired: by restating it as operationalism and testimonial truth. Mises merely failed in his attempt. Because he relied upon rationalism rather than science. And very likely, as did popper, and the rest of the cosmopolitans, because it allowed him to justify preconceptions rather than to discover uncomfortable truths: that the cosmopolitan way of life was systemically immoral, and that western universalism cannot be use as an attempt to preserve separatism.

  • The Spectrum of Terms for Impulsivity

    [P]reference is a choice. Demonstrated time preference (useful for the economic concept of interest but not scientific in that it’s causally descriptive) appears to be largely genetic, and is determined by what we consider the ‘frustration budget’:our ability to suppress the urge for gratification.

    So the terms, Impulsivity, frustration budget (tolerance), and time preference represent three portions of the impulsivity spectrum. Where the lower our impulsivity, the higher our tolerance for frustration, and the greater our willingness to persist a desire for a long term goal, each represent our social classes.

    As such to discuss time preference outside of the impulsively scale is to attribute to choice that which is no more available to choice than rational thought is to the solipsist, empathy is to the autistic, or operational calculation using abstract rules of deduction is to the imbecile.

    The language of libertinism is rife with upper middle class economic loading and framing: attributing to choice that which is not, in order to perpetuate the fallacy that liberty is a rational preference and choice, rather than the reproductive strategy of an elite minority and the social outcasts that follow them in hopes of status seeking. Instead, science: empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and performative truth attempts to explain all phenomenon in least loaded and framed (if not least obscurant) terms.

    It is for this reason that the language of science is the language of the spoken and written truth, and rationalism must always be suspect, because the majority of outright lies, pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience have been told in rational language.

    So while rationalists say that something is possible or may be possible, science merely demonstrates that rationalism is de facto the optimum means of lying invented by man.

    And the 20th century as Hayek proposed, was merely the high point of cosmopolitan pseudoscience, precisely because those with lesser abilities relied upon rationalism rather than science. And they did so because it was profitable to lie: see various quotes by and about Marx and Keynes.

    Praxeology can be repaired: by restating it as operationalism and testimonial truth. Mises merely failed in his attempt. Because he relied upon rationalism rather than science. And very likely, as did popper, and the rest of the cosmopolitans, because it allowed him to justify preconceptions rather than to discover uncomfortable truths: that the cosmopolitan way of life was systemically immoral, and that western universalism cannot be use as an attempt to preserve separatism.

  • ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (in progress) I am developing, by accident, a theory of

    ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

    (in progress)

    I am developing, by accident, a theory of the cause and content of consciousness. (And I don’t like it.)

    I have emphasized the treatment of calculation and incentives in human behavior;

    And my proposition is that all behavior is intuitionistic;

    And that our intuitionistic calculation is merely an attempt to accumulate property-en-toto.

    And that reason assists us largely in negotiation – negotiation largely expressed as justification; and that we can negotiate and justify because we can both sympathize with intention, and empathize with experiential reaction, or anticipated changes in state, then …. (More here )

    And that as a consequence of negotiating we evolved planning, and the entire Propertarian system that I have attempted to capture in both philosophical and scientific terms.

    In no small part because my intuition, given my genetic interests, is to defeat the use of deception in negotiation, leaving room only for truth telling.

    (More here)

    Because at the top of the spectrum I see that regression toward the mean is inescapable without eugenic suppression.

    Perhaps we explore to leave bad genes behind us, and there are no more continents to conquer.

    As such we cannot leave bad genes behind and must return to the suppression of their expansion in one end, or their destruction on the other.

    In the market, we can cooperate and eugenic ally suppress the inferior genes. Under redistribution we replicate inferior genes (families, classes and tribes).

    The female has a harder time selecting than the male who must merely choose allies. Worse, her impulses are to select for maladaptive behavior:,impulsivity and aggressiveness. This is a pre-sentient form of reproduction. Of the major impulses that affect human cooperation aggression and intelligence, and verbal intelligence in particular are advantageous, while impulsivity is not. Impulsivity reduces preference for consideration: what we call time preference.

    If left unchecked rapid rates of breeding among aggressive and impulsive people’s will defeat lower rates of reproduction among less impulsive, less aggressive people’s. And intelligence and small numbers against aggression and impulsivity in large numbers can succeed through separatism as the west has demonstrated in keeping the east at bay until the socialist era brought about by the cosmopolitans seeking safe haven, retention of separatism, and to retain their parasitism.

    And so separatism, property, market, paternalism and marriage are the means by which we insure eugenic reproduction rather than the dysgenic reproduction of females.

    So indo European man evolved the most rapid means of suppressing female dysgenic and produced eugenic and by doing so dragged all if human exist and out of ignorance and poverty.

    The Chinese method is more direct: systemic slaughter of malcontents under the ideology of order. Our western solution is still superior because we separate moral order from social and economic order.

    This is why our velocity of innovation is higher than other civilizations.

    All we do is negotiate and justify. Our moral intuitions reflect our genetic strategies. We seek to negotiate on their behalf while perusing their interests.

    Our emotions are merely rewards for successful negotiation on behalf of our genetic interests.

    Nothing more.

    As such the questions we face are calculable – all social propositions if reduced to Propertarian statements are in fact decidable.

    Social science is done.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-30 07:26:00 UTC

  • THE LIBERTINE ANTI-SCIENTIFIC LIE –“1. social sciences cannot control condition

    THE LIBERTINE ANTI-SCIENTIFIC LIE

    –“1. social sciences cannot control conditions such to test the variables of a hypothesis.”—

    This statement is false. It is one of the many libertine lies. As most libertine lies, and like most successful lies, it relies enough on a grain of half truth to be able to fool the audience by suggestion.

    Positivism as a movement is false, but empiricism is not. There is no requirement for constructing data, only for observing and collecting data as measurement of one kind or another, because we must be sure that by the use of measurements, we compensate for the frailty of our wishful thinking, our biases, our reason, our perception, and memory.

    For example, we can and did hypothesize red shift. We cannot create red shift, only observe it. Likewise, we can construct an theory of the economy, or of any social phenomenon, and exhaustively test the theory against all instances of the collected data.

    As long as the data that CORRESPONDS can be operationally DESCRIBED – that is, reduced to a rational series of human actions – then we have conducted both a test of external correspondence as well as a test of internal consistency.

    Just why this lie has been so successful I am not sure. I suspect that it is because people WANT to believe the lie, as they want to believe many lies. Because they try to justify what gives them advantage, rather than seek the truth whether it is advantageous to them or not.

    But the fact remains, the criticism of empiricism in the social sciences is nothing more than an elaborate lie, that literally through “advertising” by cosmopolitan libertines, has successfully overloaded an ignorant and wishful population sufficient to persist the lie – just as all cults and religions must accomplish, libertines (all cosmopolitans) have accomplished this particular lie.

    PHILOSOPHY IS IDENTICAL TO SCIENCE IF WE SPEAK THE TRUTH, AND WE MAY ONLY SPEAK THE TRUTH WHERE PHILOSOPHY IS IDENTICAL TO SCIENCE. BECAUSE THE DISCIPLINE WE CALL “SCIENCE” IS A MORAL ONE – and has nothing particular to do with scientific research, but all human inquiry.

    1 – Empiricism: observe, measure, record.

    2 – Instrumentalism: reduce the imperceptible and incomparable to the perceptible and comparable by means of formal instruments (physical instrumentation) or informal instruments (logic).

    3 – Operationalism: defend against the introduction of error, wishful thinking, bias, and imagination.

    4 – Testimonial Truth: it is not possible to testify to the truth of a proposition that you cannot state operationally, as both a means of construction (internal consistency, existential possibility), and a means of use (external correspondence, external correlation).

    As far as I know the libertine fallacy stands irreparably falsified by this argument.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 08:56:00 UTC

  • DELAYED REPRODUCTION AND SLOWING RELATIVE MUTATION ACCUMULATION —“Delayed repr

    DELAYED REPRODUCTION AND SLOWING RELATIVE MUTATION ACCUMULATION

    —“Delayed reproduction leads to more chance of mutations (eg from sperm) and problems with poorer quality control on release of older eggs (eg trisomy twenty one is probably the tip of an iceberg of similar problems).

    ***But late reproduction also reduces the number of generations and the possibility of mutation accumulation from that cause – so that modern people only have two generations (e.g. average thirty plus years) – i.e. two new lots of mutations in sixty-something years – where in historical times there would have been three generations per 60-70 years – three lots of new mutations****.

    So slowing reproduction (by increasing the average age of reproduction) may perhaps reduce mutation accumulation temporarily; given that the effect of aging on mutations may be less per decade than the effect of an extra generation of new mutations. “—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-14 06:42:00 UTC

  • accumulation as explanation of decline in intelligence

    http://feedly.com/k/1EM1DG1Mutation accumulation as explanation of decline in intelligence

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-12 15:54:00 UTC