Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • FIGURED IT OUT: THE METHOD OF LYING IN THE RELIGION AND PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC ERAS I

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/01/04/if-you-can-name-a-thing-you-can-kill-a-thing/I FIGURED IT OUT: THE METHOD OF LYING IN THE RELIGION AND PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC ERAS

    I think it was 2013 that I questioned whether I had to solve the problem of Truth or not. And I was pretty stressed about it. But I just felt like I couldn’t put an end to postmodern deceit unless I did so. So reluctantly I started working on it. And it took me a while. It was fairly hard. Easier thanks to the work on critical rationalism and the current state of the foundation of mathematics.

    Then, once there, I asked myself, if I could end lying. In January of this year (2015) I posted this on my web site: “If You Can Name a Thing, You Can Kill A Thing”. Meaning that things have ‘true names’ (operational names). And if you know its true name you can defeat it.

    I wasn’t sure I could solve the technique by which the monotheistic and cosmopolitan lies were constructed. But I did. And now I understand why they had to close the Stoic Schools: they make you impervious to the technique of using half truths to conduct pre-shaming, and to invoke altruistic responses as substitutes rather than skepticism.

    In other words, liars take advantage of a social cognitive bias. And through repetition convince us that a convenient lie is necessary when it is not.

    I’ve also begun to understand why western traditionalists think god is the subject of spirituality rather than an excuse to make use of spirituality for totalitarian purposes against the genetic interests of a people.

    So I know how to kill that too.

    I thought this would take me longer than a year. In a year I will have religion so deconstructed that I will match the precision of my deconstruction of morality. I will unify religion along with every other discipline.

    I am confident now. I can do it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-22 06:45:00 UTC

  • TRUE ENOUGH? IMAGINE A GRAMMAR THAT REQUIRED PROMISED TRUTH CONTENT (worth repea

    TRUE ENOUGH? IMAGINE A GRAMMAR THAT REQUIRED PROMISED TRUTH CONTENT

    (worth repeating) (extension of hierarchy of truth) (interesting for language geeks)

    ***The purpose of science is not to convey the experience but to provide decidability in matters of dispute over existence regardless of experience.***

    Lets note the difference between the following points of view.

    1 existence,

    2 experience of the universe,

    3 utility in determining one’s action,

    4 observation of an action and consequences

    5 justification of the results of one’s action,

    6 warranty in recommendation of action*,

    7 and decidability in conflict*,

    …describes a spectrum of problems we must understand. Our grammar does not readily address these differences, and our problem of the verb to-be exacerbates the problem since ‘is’ evolved specifically to avoid the problem of articulating this spectrum, thereby allowing the audience to infer it.

    I work on the last two*. I think humans are pretty good at experience and utility. And some of us are pretty good at justificatoin. Largely, since justification is the language of morality, most people tend to use moral language.

    Imagine a language that required you address these seven degrees of truth in one’s grammar. Imagine the kind of self awareness one would need to avoid conflation of each of them.

    We have enough problem with people saying “it’s true for me” when they mean that it is sufficiently useful for me to act”.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-20 14:05:00 UTC

  • Each field unfortunately uses slightly different language. But the sequence is t

    Each field unfortunately uses slightly different language. But the sequence is the same.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-16 08:41:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/666174239251243008

    Reply addressees: @wargfranklin

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/666149651104423936

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/666149651104423936

  • Learn to debate honestly. Don’t play redefinition games

    Learn to debate honestly. Don’t play redefinition games.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 22:13:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665291522292752384

    Reply addressees: @RiverC

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665291122189737984

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665291122189737984

  • So you are somehow fabricating a definition of ethics?

    So you are somehow fabricating a definition of ethics?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 22:05:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665289512118034432

    Reply addressees: @RiverC

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665288054073110528

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665288054073110528

  • constants (types of property), variables (possessions, information available), o

    constants (types of property), variables (possessions, information available), operations (rational actions), functions (institutions).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 13:09:00 UTC

  • Propertarian reasoning is very similar to writing a software program. We have co

    Propertarian reasoning is very similar to writing a software program. We have constants, variables, operations and functions.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 13:07:00 UTC

  • USE OF THE WORD “NATURAL” IN ECONOMICS (re: Tyler Cowen/ Scott Sumner / Econlib

    USE OF THE WORD “NATURAL” IN ECONOMICS

    (re: Tyler Cowen/ Scott Sumner / Econlib ) (important idea )

    —“Economic activity consists of interactions between people, and it’s not ever independent of human influence, and so it’s never “natural”.—

    One can however, increase the truth content of human relations, or one can decrease the truth content of human relations. One can increase the truth content of human relations in times of shock. One can decrease the truth content of human relations in order to accelerate consumption.

    So human relationships are in a natural state any time we improve institutions that improve information by reducing informational asymmetry, or distributing information that was previously unavailable (prices, interests rates, money supply, etc).

    Human relations are in an unnatural state when we insert disinformation in order to fool people into acting other than they would in the natural state. For this reason it is perhaps more accurate to distinguish not between natural and artificial, but truth and deception, morality and immorality.

    The most accurate model of the social sciences, like the physical sciences is information.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-09 04:39:00 UTC

  • Autistic speech is not incomprehensible to other autists any more than mythic or

    Autistic speech is not incomprehensible to other autists any more than mythic or emotional speech is to theologians or women.

    It’s just that we are fewer in number and have not had a language if our own until now.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 11:18:00 UTC

  • “Communication, Argument, and Proof are different things unfortunately. I don’t

    —“Communication, Argument, and Proof are different things unfortunately. I don’t really communicate. I construct arguments and proofs. My “managers” tell me to do that, and leave communication of it for others. And that seems to work best. There are already a few people that are better at communicating these ideas than I am.”—Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 10:38:00 UTC