Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • This data does not match the church data, or the church financial data. It’s the

    This data does not match the church data, or the church financial data. It’s the same reason Danes always poll as happier when they aren’t. It’s expected. It’s why polls that can be affected by virtue signals are off so far (political).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-26 01:11:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1154559941748781058

    Reply addressees: @mariachong @TakillaMocking @EPoe187

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1154495423278542848

    IN REPLY TO:

    @mariachong

    @TakillaMocking @EPoe187 America is very religious. Even non-church goers in America are religious: https://t.co/xe2YsRGqgx

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1154495423278542848

  • huh… a dormouse weighs .5 oz. that means yield is about .5 of .5, or .12oz or

    huh… a dormouse weighs .5 oz. that means yield is about .5 of .5, or .12oz or about 3.4g – at best. That’s about equal to 3/4 of a teaspoon of sugar by weight, including scraps and such.. ack.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-25 23:34:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1154535492869939202

    Reply addressees: @hbdchick

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1154529448508755969

    IN REPLY TO:

    @hbdchick

    baked DORMOUSE!! (O.O) https://t.co/kpl9BZ3o2u

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1154529448508755969

  • MYTHOLOGY IS THE SYSTEM OF CALCULATION OF LAST RESORT Theology is a system of me

    MYTHOLOGY IS THE SYSTEM OF CALCULATION OF LAST RESORT

    Theology is a system of measurement for those lacking education, training, and ability to engage in less intuitionistic means of measurement. Just as philosophy is. Just as moral normativism is.

    Math, Science, Algorithms, Economics and Law are burdensome, and all require external state management (external means of memory) in order to function, while anthropomorphism anthropocentrism, gods, souls, and debts, credits, reciprocity within the limits of proportionality are very primitive means of describing the economics of cooperation in intuitionistic terms that do NOT require external state management.

    So here is the thing: it’s one thing to say IT WORKS the way nursery rhymes, mnemonics, poems, and parables work. it’s another to say it’s TRUE.

    It’s not TRUE in fact. It’s allegorical.

    As such one can base an argument as to the morality of a statement, but one cannot base an argument on the existence of an analogy.

    One can inform by analogy. One can only speak the truth descriptively (operationally) by testimony (experience) that is warrantied by due diligence, against error, bias, fictionalism and deceit.

    The ten commandments are just property rights under natural law. The christian strategy is just the optimum prisoners dilemma strategy for optimum cooperation also under natural law. But one requires knowledge to make both those statements. One can however, teach ignorant slaves, serfs, herdsmen, of intelligence below the threshold of reading and following instructions, or children the ‘system of accounting’ that they were evovled to practice, “morals”(property rights) without the need to train them in the use of systems of tools of measurement first.

    Mythology is the SYSTEM OF CALCULATION OF LAST RESORT. Religion is the means by which incommensurable systems of calculation of last resort were made commensurable, despite the (extremely) limited ability and knowledge of the populations.

    So when presented with a significant problem that affects others, for which we have insufficient knowledge we can GRACEFULLY DEGRADE from Math, so science, to algorithms, to economics, to law, to norms, to traditions, to myths, and EVEN IF WE FAIL we will have done so within the boundaries of cooperation within our polity, and not enter into debt with that polity and be held accountable for failure.

    ie: We will be forgiven.

    That is the purpose of the grammars, and the grammar of last resort: mythos.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-15 14:12:35 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102445872224228854

  • Boost of @curtd MYTHOLOGY IS THE SYSTEM OF CALCULATION OF LAST RESORT Theology i

    Boost of @curtd MYTHOLOGY IS THE SYSTEM OF CALCULATION OF LAST RESORT

    Theology is a system of measurement for those lacking education, training, and ability to engage in less intuitionistic means of measurement. Just as philosophy is. Just as moral normativism is.

    Math, Science, Algorithms, Economics and Law are burdensome, and all require external state management (external means of memory) in order to function, while anthropomorphism anthropocentrism, gods, souls, and debts, credits, reciprocity within the limits of proportionality are very primitive means of describing the economics of cooperation in intuitionistic terms that do NOT require external state management.

    So here is the thing: it’s one thing to say IT WORKS the way nursery rhymes, mnemonics, poems, and parables work. it’s another to say it’s TRUE.

    It’s not TRUE in fact. It’s allegorical.

    As such one can base an argument as to the morality of a statement, but one cannot base an argument on the existence of an analogy.

    One can inform by analogy. One can only speak the truth descriptively (operationally) by testimony (experience) that is warrantied by due diligence, against error, bias, fictionalism and deceit.

    The ten commandments are just property rights under natural law. The christian strategy is just the optimum prisoners dilemma strategy for optimum cooperation also under natural law. But one requires knowledge to make both those statements. One can however, teach ignorant slaves, serfs, herdsmen, of intelligence below the threshold of reading and following instructions, or children the ‘system of accounting’ that they were evovled to practice, “morals”(property rights) without the need to train them in the use of systems of tools of measurement first.

    Mythology is the SYSTEM OF CALCULATION OF LAST RESORT. Religion is the means by which incommensurable systems of calculation of last resort were made commensurable, despite the (extremely) limited ability and knowledge of the populations.

    So when presented with a significant problem that affects others, for which we have insufficient knowledge we can GRACEFULLY DEGRADE from Math, so science, to algorithms, to economics, to law, to norms, to traditions, to myths, and EVEN IF WE FAIL we will have done so within the boundaries of cooperation within our polity, and not enter into debt with that polity and be held accountable for failure.

    ie: We will be forgiven.

    That is the purpose of the grammars, and the grammar of last resort: mythos.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-15 14:12:35 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105752655683075389

  • SUPERNATURAL LIARS (PART 2) 5. —“God … soul… exists”– Gods(accountants) a

    SUPERNATURAL LIARS
    (PART 2)

    5. —“God … soul… exists”–
    Gods(accountants) and souls (debt/credit accounts), are supernatural (false), fictional (false), euphemisms (analogies) we use for terms that correctly describe human intuitions of cooperation in the continuous competition between reciprocity (merit) and proportionality (necessary to maintain group cohesion), an a real, and natural world, where authorities (Rulers, Governors, Judges, Warriors, soldiers, Owners, Adult Men) are as selfish, predatory, parasitic, and dishonest, as the common people that they manage.

    Gods are a system of measurement for cooperation within a group strategy within a series of polities sharing that strategy.

    This system of measurement requires no ‘education’ (and is therefore a favor of the ignorant) other than intuition, since our intuition in relation to cooperation is merely a measurement of our success and failure at acquisition within the limits of our willingness not to defect or fight (proportionality).

    So the reason for anthropocentric, anthropomorphic systems of measurement is that they can be taught to toddlers or people with even 60 or lower IQ (most of our history) without the need to engage in LOGIC and EVIDENCE in COMPETITION before PEERS in a COURT before a JUDGE who does so.

    Anthropocentrism, Anthropomorphism, Supernaturalism, Idealism, sophism, pseudoscience, are all means of lying.

    If you can’t say it in operational language you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just a trained monkey. A semi-domesticated animal we have released from slavery and serfdom in the hope that normative, economic and legal institutions can provide you with sufficient incentives to contribute to the polity rather than drag the rest of us back in to dysgenia, ignorance, poverty, and suffering with you in your natural state.

    Hence why we must rule (fully humans), and you must be ruled (undomesticated semi-humans.). 　

    I DON’T ERR – That’s my RECORD. I don’t ERR. Because I don’t make claims (put forth formal arguments) that I can’t construct as formal arguments (proofs) using all eight dimensions perceivable by man.

    I just can’t afford to invest this heavily in correcting the lies of every addict that seeks to preserve his malinvestment in network of lies, rather than learning how to translate that network of lies into truthful speech.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-15 13:47:16 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102445772689483932

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102445769725073371

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    SUPERNATURAL LIARS ALL – A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF DEITIES AS SYSTEMS OF MEASUREMENT I don’t make errors. It’s my job. My job is to articulate the law that prevents liars (or technically, addicts who lie) from further harm to the population by creating false narratives, of false debts, and false causes. My principal challenge is in collecting enough errors from an individual that I can thoroughly falsify is or her methods of lying by identifying (a) means of lying, (b) motive for lying (c) opportunity to engage in the lie – where opportunity is simply demonstrated by the act of attempting to argue with me. 1. Define “Scientism” “The cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.” or “In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism” or” an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific” (taken from wiki – those are the three criteria that I know of. None of which claim scientific claims do not defeat fictionalisms, but that science (social science in particular) may make false or trivial or irrelevant claims.) That is not the case in the distinction between the supernatural and the natural, but between variations in the natural, and normative. 2. —“accept … god exists”– If one does not place faith in the existence of a deity for which there is no evidence other than human fictionalism. Where as like all ancient anthropocentric, and anthropomorphic pretense of knowledge has fallen to falsehood rapidly under scientific investigation. In other words, if a theory is anthropocentric, and anthropomorphic, and unbound by naturalism (itself counter to anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism), then it corresponds MOST with ignorance, error, wishful thinking, fictionalism and deceit (lying). All such claims are false. We can find NO such claims that are NOT false. 3. —“science”– Science consists of warrantied due diligence by the exhaustive, systematic, falsification of human tendency to engage in justification of ignorance, knowledge pretense, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, fictionalism(sophism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism) fraud, and deceit. 4. —“empirical facts”— You did not present empirical facts (theory of an observation of measurement.) You offered opinion on correlation. You did not state the operational causation for the correlation. You CANNOT prove anything, only falsify the alternatives leaving the most competitive solution (parsimonious, consistent, correspondent, operational, rational choice, reciprocal, complete, limited, fully accounted, and coherent (collectively internally consistent). All non-trivial statements are open to falsification by greater parsimony under realism and naturalism (absent the fictionalisms). (continued…. in part 2)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102445769725073371

  • SUPERNATURAL LIARS ALL – A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF DEITIES AS SYSTEMS OF MEASU

    SUPERNATURAL LIARS ALL – A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF DEITIES AS SYSTEMS OF MEASUREMENT

    I don’t make errors. It’s my job. My job is to articulate the law that prevents liars (or technically, addicts who lie) from further harm to the population by creating false narratives, of false debts, and false causes.

    My principal challenge is in collecting enough errors from an individual that I can thoroughly falsify is or her methods of lying by identifying (a) means of lying, (b) motive for lying (c) opportunity to engage in the lie – where opportunity is simply demonstrated by the act of attempting to argue with me.

    1. Define “Scientism”
    “The cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.” or “In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism” or” an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific” (taken from wiki – those are the three criteria that I know of. None of which claim scientific claims do not defeat fictionalisms, but that science (social science in particular) may make false or trivial or irrelevant claims.) That is not the case in the distinction between the supernatural and the natural, but between variations in the natural, and normative.

    2. —“accept … god exists”–
    If one does not place faith in the existence of a deity for which there is no evidence other than human fictionalism. Where as like all ancient anthropocentric, and anthropomorphic pretense of knowledge has fallen to falsehood rapidly under scientific investigation. In other words, if a theory is anthropocentric, and anthropomorphic, and unbound by naturalism (itself counter to anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism), then it corresponds MOST with ignorance, error, wishful thinking, fictionalism and deceit (lying). All such claims are false. We can find NO such claims that are NOT false.

    3. —“science”–
    Science consists of warrantied due diligence by the exhaustive, systematic, falsification of human tendency to engage in justification of ignorance, knowledge pretense, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, fictionalism(sophism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism) fraud, and deceit.

    4. —“empirical facts”—
    You did not present empirical facts (theory of an observation of measurement.) You offered opinion on correlation.
    You did not state the operational causation for the correlation. You CANNOT prove anything, only falsify the alternatives leaving the most competitive solution (parsimonious, consistent, correspondent, operational, rational choice, reciprocal, complete, limited, fully accounted, and coherent (collectively internally consistent). All non-trivial statements are open to falsification by greater parsimony under realism and naturalism (absent the fictionalisms).

    (continued…. in part 2)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-15 13:46:31 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102445769725073371

  • @BIGSCHMOOL @Nationalist7346 That is an inarticulate means by which to say that

    @BIGSCHMOOL @Nationalist7346 That is an inarticulate means by which to say that the paradigm by which we construct the constant relations necessary for descriptions of necessity influences subsequent deductions. That says NOTHING about the fact that by continuous recursive competition we have produce continuous increases in precision toward a single universal paradigm, and that this paradigm consists of realism, naturalism, empiricism, and operationalism.

    This is not a subject you are equipped to discuss, and it is my principal area of research….

    I can tell you with certainty that you are simply trying to preserve confidence in a set of paradigms that you feel you have understanding of, and which are sufficient for you to grasp the world at your degree of agency and therefore given your limited agency, unable to falsify.

    The scientific position on your paradigmatic condition is that you fail to seek to falsify your paradigm because you lack the agency (intelligence, personality traits, time, or character) to obtain sufficient knowledge to do so.

    So please don’t waste my time while you try to expand your reality distortion field with comforting lies, for the purpose of falsely convincing yourself of agency in this world. You don’t have it. I know you don’t Because no one with agency believes such silly things, nor tries to evangelize them to those above their ranks.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-14 18:41:25 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102441267027690259

  • (…) THE METHODOLOGY The methodology consists largely of using algorithmic (lik

    (…)

    THE METHODOLOGY

    The methodology consists largely of using algorithmic (like programming) operational language, the vocabulary and concepts of economics and law, to produce operationally formal arguments, that satisfy all dimensions of human perception (consistency, correspondence, operational (existential) possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, limits, full accounting, parsimony, coherence, and warrantied for due diligence against ignorance error bias and deceit for having done so. If you want to learn the methodology, it’s formal, and its relatively difficult, not because the principles are difficult, but because it exposes whether you know what you’re talking about or not, and forces you to speak and write in terms demonstrating that you have the knowledge to claim what you speak is true.

    This method, produces the long sought after ‘strictly constructed law’ closed to interpretation, on one end and the ability to limit political speech to that which is not false parasitic, predatory.

    So that’s the evidence I can and have summarized the work. It’s not philosophy or ideology so it’s not something you intuit, it’s like the calculus, formal logic, programming, economics, and law, which is something you study and learn by repeated application until it’s a skill.

    This is the most important work being produced in the field at present. nothing else compares. I know. And I know why, and I explain why, and it’s not a good thing that the enemy has been so successful at sophism pseudoscience propaganda and denial.

    Now, if that’s too much for your big boy pants, I’m sorry for you. But learning this if you have studied literary philosophy instead of science, logic, algorithms, economics, and law can be burdensome because you are the equivalent of a theologian in the empirical enlightenment, given that this formal logic of the social sciences deprecates literary philosophy forever to the realm of pseudosciences.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 02:52:34 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426211274373936

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426209481700160

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    (…) 3. A Methodology: i) Epistemology: “The Completion of the Scientific Method and its application to the full scope of human knowledge, resulting in a universal, formal, epistemological method sufficient for adjudication of differences in court.“ ii) Ethics, Law, Politics: “The strict, algorithmic, construction of the natural, common law, of reciprocity (tort);” 4. A Body of Law: ii) Law: “A body of law answering the cannon of questions – providing a common law of equally sovereign men, alternative to Roman, Napoleonic, and Continental law of unequally sovereign men” iii) Constitution: A Constitution of that law, completing the Aristotelian, Roman, British, and American Constitutional Project.” iiii) Policies: “A set of policies under that constitution, solving the otherwise unsolvable problems of the current age.” 5. A Reformation: i) Reformation: “A reformation and unification of all fields” – Language, Logic, and Mathematics – Psychology, Sociology, and Group Strategy – Money, Credit-Finance, and Economics – Ethics, Law, and Politics – Mindfulness-Religion, Education-Academy, and Government-Rule 6. A Solution i) A Solution: “A solution to the political problem of our age.” ii) A Declaration: “A Declaration demanding the implementation of this constitution, as reformations of, by amendments to, the existing American constitution, restoring the historical European, Germanic, English, British, and American rights of equally sovereign men, and a means of successful insurrection to force its adoption if force is required – which it will be.” THE LIST OF IDEAS Too long to list here but the overview lists all of the major themes in order by aristotelian category. From there you have to link to specific articles. ANd then there is the courseware. ANd finally I will ship the book when ready. (…)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426209481700160

  • ( …. continued:) So given that reason and then science evolved from law, and l

    ( …. continued:)

    So given that reason and then science evolved from law, and law dependent upon testimony, and that we are seeking to produce in the science that degree of testimony we would produce in court, then I see nothing terribly novel about continuing and completing that evolutionary process. In other words, science adopted operational prose as a means of suppressing the untestifiable. And I can see no reason why we would not extend this from the sciences to the pseudosciences – especially those which are used to construct and enforce law.

    —“The reason I care at all about this metaphysics issue is because I must partially disagree with the last line in the 18MAR2018 statement. While the list Curt provides is a good start, it is just a start, just a tip, and I suspect there is a whole lot more as yet unseen and undescribed to that iceberg. “—

    Despite trying, and the efforts of tens of thousands of researchers we cannot find a single case that is inexplicable by naturalistic means. In other words, I can’t find a reason to put money on (demonstrated belief in) other than common cognitive artifacts.

    —“That course was SOM 212: Myth & Spirit – The Life of Joseph Campbell”—

    My argument is that if metaphysics refers to what exists, then what do we name the study of the imaginary and fictional. In other words, how do we disambiguate between the operational, and the non? That does not mean that we do not find solace, escape, entertainment, ideation, or wisdom in fictional worlds. it does mean that we cannot testify to them or use them in argument (truth testing, evidence, persuasion, law).

    —“I have observed many, many, demonstrations of this effect which go far beyond pop psych positive thinking, social group effect, and anything else reasonably explicable by conventional Newtonian understanding of a mechanistic universe. “—

    As far as I know we have understood this phenomenon since the late seventies as nothing more than synchronicity when subject to the same information. We cannot find a single case otherwise.

    —“Rather, an example of this metaphysical (meaning, we just do not yet know how the black box of the universe does it) effect would be my thinking about a certain extremely unusual item, which I have not seen for many years, while in a fuge state washing dishes in the evening, then the next day driving down the road find that this exact item has literally fallen out of the sky and is laying there on the center line of a deserted stretch of road right in front of me (fell off a truck, presumably).”—

    (continued….)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:44:40 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424764699895143

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424759624047899

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    —“We Sense The World Fine] with the extension that while I’d agree we sense it fine, we demonstrably do not sense it completely -at least, not via direct experience of our senses. For example, radio waves exist and contain information yet unless we have a loose filling in a tooth which happens to be tuned to the same frequency as a transmitter, we do not appreciate any information in the signal. Technology allows us to access radio waves while our unaided senses would be unaware they exist (thanks, Marconi).”— Yes, we sense only that which is actionable, since brains are extremely expensive, and the inactionable is a waste of calories. Hence why we can’t see the infrared. —“The second statement, or first if taken chronologically (18MAR2018: What Is Your Personal Philosophy As It Relates To Ethics and Metaphysics? Why?] elicits more agreement and a couple more caveats. The first is that “why” is a philosophical question rather than a scientific question,”— Incentives are just as scientific (open to description in general rules, constructed from observations (measurements).) As far as i know all human behavior is open to description by incentives and information error in our cognition. This might be because I am current on both cog sci, neurology, and comp sci. —“but my perception is that P is actually a philosophy at this point rather than a science (if it was a science then the question would asl “how” rather than “why”) so this is internally consistent.”—- I am not sure that defines the discipline of science because it produces an arbitrary distinction between our state of measurement of invariant processes (physical) with measurement of variant processes (cognitive), despite the fact that we have at present a fairly good understanding of the physical process which produce experience and cognition by physical means. Moreover, as far as I understand our present knowledge of the wave, particle and upward universe, there is no possibility for the transmission of information by other means within that state of the universe. My understanding of the discipline of science after a century of failure to articulate a via-positiva method, is that it consists of whatever due diligences are necessary such that through the use of observation, measurement, and deduction, to reduce that which is beyond our senses, perception, reason, and memory, to analogies to experience that can be tested(compared) within the limits of our sense, perception, reason, and memory, such that we can warranty that we do not engage in fiction, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, fictionalisms (sophism, pseudoscience, mysticism), fraud, or outright deceit. (continued….)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424759624047899

  • “We Sense The World Fine] with the extension that while I’d agree we sense it fi

    —“We Sense The World Fine] with the extension that while I’d agree we sense it fine, we demonstrably do not sense it completely -at least, not via direct experience of our senses. For example, radio waves exist and contain information yet unless we have a loose filling in a tooth which happens to be tuned to the same frequency as a transmitter, we do not appreciate any information in the signal. Technology allows us to access radio waves while our unaided senses would be unaware they exist (thanks, Marconi).”—

    Yes, we sense only that which is actionable, since brains are extremely expensive, and the inactionable is a waste of calories. Hence why we can’t see the infrared.

    —“The second statement, or first if taken chronologically (18MAR2018: What Is Your Personal Philosophy As It Relates To Ethics and Metaphysics? Why?] elicits more agreement and a couple more caveats. The first is that “why” is a philosophical question rather than a scientific question,”—

    Incentives are just as scientific (open to description in general rules, constructed from observations (measurements).) As far as i know all human behavior is open to description by incentives and information error in our cognition. This might be because I am current on both cog sci, neurology, and comp sci.

    —“but my perception is that P is actually a philosophy at this point rather than a science (if it was a science then the question would asl “how” rather than “why”) so this is internally consistent.”—-

    I am not sure that defines the discipline of science because it produces an arbitrary distinction between our state of measurement of invariant processes (physical) with measurement of variant processes (cognitive), despite the fact that we have at present a fairly good understanding of the physical process which produce experience and cognition by physical means.

    Moreover, as far as I understand our present knowledge of the wave, particle and upward universe, there is no possibility for the transmission of information by other means within that state of the universe.

    My understanding of the discipline of science after a century of failure to articulate a via-positiva method, is that it consists of whatever due diligences are necessary such that through the use of observation, measurement, and deduction, to reduce that which is beyond our senses, perception, reason, and memory, to analogies to experience that can be tested(compared) within the limits of our sense, perception, reason, and memory, such that we can warranty that we do not engage in fiction, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, fictionalisms (sophism, pseudoscience, mysticism), fraud, or outright deceit.

    (continued….)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:43:23 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424759624047899