Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • I Have An Iq Of 151. What Does It Mean?

    It is extremely unlikely that you have an IQ of 151, You can only know that IQ with any degree of certainty by taking a private IQ test withe a professional psychologist. And had you done so the meaning would have been discussed with you.

    It is even more unlikely that you have an IQ of 151 and are asking this question, because the ability to perform research on novel topics independent of instruction begins in the high one-teens, and increases rapidly after 122.

    It is even more unlikely you have an IQ of 151 because above 140 we cannot measure IQ with any degree of accuracy.

    It is even more unlikely that you are over 22, which is the point at which IQ begins to normalize across the population due to the vast difference in rates of male and female maturity – and where IQ begins to affect your life significantly because you are free to make decisions and take actions.

    https://www.quora.com/I-have-an-IQ-of-151-What-does-it-mean

  • Actually, I Can’t Be Wrong (About This). Sorry.

    (Note: this version is updated to correctly include operations/actions) Information. Decidability. Due Diligence. Testimony. TRUTH 4) Tautology exists (and can only exist) two statements that are identical in informational content for a given precision (context). Meaning closure of the constant relations between states (statements). 3) Truth (Analytic Truth) exists (and can only exist) as a definition of a Truthful statement that is informationally complete (closed). Analytic truths are tautological, with the difference between tautological, and tautology, being deductive necessity. (due to constant relations between states). 2) Truthfulness (Scientific) exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one has performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in one’s testimony in all the dimensions of possible constant relations. 1) Honesty exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit – but not free of imagination, ignorance, bias, and error. DIMENSIONS WE CAN PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST 1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point) 2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line) 3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object) 4 – operational possibility – (equivalent of change [operations]) 5 – rational choice (volition) – (equivalent of time) 6 – reciprocity (ethics, morality) (equivalent of equilibrium) 7 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof) MATHEMATICAL DEFINITIONS OF DIMENSIONS 1 – point, (identity, or correspondence) 2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points) 3 – area (defined by constant relations) 4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations) 5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations) 6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas)) 7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations) 8 – reality (or totality) (full causal density) GRAMMARS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS (LOGICS) FOR THE DIMENSIONS We can speak in descriptions including (at least): 1 – operational (true) names 2 – mathematics (ratios) 3 – logic (sets) 4 – operations (actions) 4 – physics (action-limiting forces) 5 – Law (reciprocity) 6 – History (memory) 7 – Literature (allegory (possible)) 8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible ) 8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory) 8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory) 8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature) 8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory) 8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory ) INFORMATION Sets of constant relations between states (all facts must exist within the context of a theory (rules of states). CONSTANT RELATIONS Constant Change and Constant persistence, of Constant relations between states (time). RELATIONS Memory, and mind consists of a hierarchy of neurons that constitute a neural economy, that rewards constant relations, and starves inconstant relations. In other words, given that all testimony depends upon incomplete knowledge (a subset of reality), and that all general rules of arbitrary precision are of necessity incomplete, then testimony and therefore law is flasificationary, logics are falsificationary, not justificationary. Truth exists only as performative via-negativa warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias and deceit. However, a proof constitutes nothing other than possibility (survival from verbal prosecution). Too much for this audience but maybe it will give you ideas. ie: constant relations > logic(internal consistency) > math science(measurement -ratio-consistency) > physics(empiricism) > law(testimony) > economics (resources) > group evolutionary strategy (utility) > Philosophy (choice) You don’t understand. I CAN’T BE WRONG. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • ACTUALLY, I CAN’T BE WRONG (ABOUT THIS). SORRY. Information. Decidability. Due D

    ACTUALLY, I CAN’T BE WRONG (ABOUT THIS). SORRY.

    Information. Decidability. Due Diligence. Testimony.

    TRUTH

    4) Tautology exists (and can only exist) two statements that are identical in informational content for a given precision (context). Meaning closure of the constant relations between states (statements).

    3) Truth (Analytic Truth) exists (and can only exist) as a definition of a Truthful statement that is informationally complete (closed). Analytic truths are tautological, with the difference between tautological, and tautology, being deductive necessity. (due to constant relations between states).

    2) Truthfulness (Scientific) exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one has performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in one’s testimony in all the dimensions of possible constant relations.

    1) Honesty exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit – but not free of imagination, ignorance, bias, and error.

    DIMENSIONS WE CAN PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST

    1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point)

    2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line)

    3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object)

    4 – operational possibility – (equivalent of change [operations])

    5 – rational choice (volition) – (equivalent of time)

    6 – reciprocity (ethics, morality) (equivalent of equilibrium)

    7 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof)

    MATHEMATICAL DEFINITIONS OF DIMENSIONS

    1 – point, (identity, or correspondence)

    2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points)

    3 – area (defined by constant relations)

    4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations)

    5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations)

    6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas))

    7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations)

    8 – reality (or totality) (full causal density)

    GRAMMARS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS (LOGICS) FOR THE DIMENSIONS

    We can speak in descriptions including (at least):

    1 – operational (true) names

    2 – mathematics (ratios)

    3 – logic (sets)

    4 – physics (operations)

    5 – Law (reciprocity)

    6 – History (memory)

    7 – Literature (allegory (possible))

    8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible )

    8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory)

    8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory)

    8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature)

    8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory)

    8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory )

    INFORMATION

    Sets of constant relations between states (all facts must exist within the context of a theory (rules of states).

    CONSTANT RELATIONS

    Constant Change and Constant persistence, of Constant relations between states (time).

    RELATIONS

    Memory, and mind consists of a hierarchy of neurons that constitute a neural economy, that rewards constant relations, and starves inconstant relations.

    In other words, given that all testimony depends upon incomplete knowledge (a subset of reality), and that all general rules of arbitrary precision are of necessity incomplete, then testimony and therefore law is flasificationary, logics are falsificationary, not justificationary.

    Truth exists only as performative via-negativa warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias and deceit. However, a proof constitutes nothing other than possibility (survival from verbal prosecution).

    Too much for this audience but maybe it will give you ideas.

    ie: constant relations > logic(internal consistency) > math science(measurement -ratio-consistency) > physics(empiricism) > law(testimony) > economics (resources) > group evolutionary strategy (utility) > Philosophy (choice)

    You don’t understand. I CAN’T BE WRONG.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-14 10:01:00 UTC

  • DEFINE “YOU” If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you? If I put your dead body

    DEFINE “YOU”

    If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you?

    If I put your dead body in a casket is that you?

    If I read your written words, isthat you?

    whenever you use the word ‘is’ you are engaged in a self or other deception, because it means “i don’t know how this exists”. When you use the word ‘you’ as referencing the physical body, or ‘you’ as the potential interaction of mind and body, or ‘you’ as the acting interaction between mind and body…. which are you asking?

    Because ‘is’ and ‘you’ questions aren’t philosophical questions, their grammatical errors positioned as a pretense of philosophical sophisms.

    I consist of the consequences of the continuous operation of my body, and in particular my brain.

    the written word consist only of potential experience until

    a mind puts it into motion by reading it. the body consists of biomass until a brain causes it to move. A brain consists of reactive nerves, until the that experence we call mind emerges from the continuous persistence of states.

    Just as we cannot observe the frames of video, we cannot observe the cycles of changes in state of the mind, and so we ‘average them’ through the persistence of stimuli across cycles.

    We do have a sense of self awareness that functions pre-cognitively, and can best be understood as that moment you awake in the dark and are unaware of your circumstances.

    It is this awareness of changes in state and like and dislikes that is ‘I’? Well, that is governed by genes. Is that ‘I’? Or am ‘i’ the combination of those genetic biases, that very simple state monitor, or at the other end, am ‘I’ that combination of body and memory in motion that you experience as a set of contsant relations ‘me?’.

    To the mentally ill person ‘i’ consists of a body in its current state. To the observer ‘i’ consists of a set of patterns of behavior given the experiences. To others (norm, law), ‘i’ consists of the rights and obligations to the host body.

    etc.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-10 15:54:00 UTC

  • DEFINE “YOU” If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you? If I put your dead body

    DEFINE “YOU” If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you? If I put your dead body in a casket is that you? If I read your written words, isthat you? whenever you use the word ‘is’ you are engaged in a self or other deception, because it means “i don’t know how this exists”. When you use the word ‘you’ as referencing the physical body, or ‘you’ as the potential interaction of mind and body, or ‘you’ as the acting interaction between mind and body…. which are you asking? Because ‘is’ and ‘you’ questions aren’t philosophical questions, their grammatical errors positioned as a pretense of philosophical sophisms. I consist of the consequences of the continuous operation of my body, and in particular my brain. the written word consist only of potential experience until a mind puts it into motion by reading it. the body consists of biomass until a brain causes it to move. A brain consists of reactive nerves, until the that experence we call mind emerges from the continuous persistence of states. Just as we cannot observe the frames of video, we cannot observe the cycles of changes in state of the mind, and so we ‘average them’ through the persistence of stimuli across cycles. We do have a sense of self awareness that functions pre-cognitively, and can best be understood as that moment you awake in the dark and are unaware of your circumstances. It is this awareness of changes in state and like and dislikes that is ‘I’? Well, that is governed by genes. Is that ‘I’? Or am ‘i’ the combination of those genetic biases, that very simple state monitor, or at the other end, am ‘I’ that combination of body and memory in motion that you experience as a set of contsant relations ‘me?’. To the mentally ill person ‘i’ consists of a body in its current state. To the observer ‘i’ consists of a set of patterns of behavior given the experiences. To others (norm, law), ‘i’ consists of the rights and obligations to the host body. etc.

  • LANGUAGE IS TRIVIALLY SIMPLE : A MARKET COMPETITION BETWEEN GRAMMAR AND SEMATICS

    LANGUAGE IS TRIVIALLY SIMPLE : A MARKET COMPETITION BETWEEN GRAMMAR AND SEMATICS

    Language is actually trivially simple: continuous disambiguation in grammar, and continuous ambiguity in semantics.

    The evolutionary problem is achieving in imagination the same level of modeling that we have in body movement.

    Once we had complex body movement (our neural density is far higher than other creatures) and complex motion-planning, it was somewhat deterministic that we could gain complex verbal planning.

    These problems seem difficult until you work with recursive neural networks long enough. Then the brain is a very simple thing that just far more neural computing power than any of our competing life forms.

    An octopus for example, is interesting, because while we have a spine that extends our brain into our body so to speak, the octopus has eight of them, and they do a lot of their own processing the way our heart and lungs do their own processing.

    Far too much ‘cheap’ philosophy, not enough ‘expensive’ physics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence.

    Learn something substantial.

    Philosophy can assist us in determining choice, preferences and goods It is notoriously if not catastrophically faulty at anything we call ‘truth’.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-10 14:24:00 UTC

  • Language Is Trivially Simple : A Market Competition Between Grammar And Sematics

    Language is actually trivially simple: continuous disambiguation in grammar, and continuous ambiguity in semantics. The evolutionary problem is achieving in imagination the same level of modeling that we have in body movement. Once we had complex body movement (our neural density is far higher than other creatures) and complex motion-planning, it was somewhat deterministic that we could gain complex verbal planning. These problems seem difficult until you work with recursive neural networks long enough. Then the brain is a very simple thing that just far more neural computing power than any of our competing life forms. An octopus for example, is interesting, because while we have a spine that extends our brain into our body so to speak, the octopus has eight of them, and they do a lot of their own processing the way our heart and lungs do their own processing. Far too much ‘cheap’ philosophy, not enough ‘expensive’ physics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence. Learn something substantial. Philosophy can assist us in determining choice, preferences and goods It is notoriously if not catastrophically faulty at anything we call ‘truth’.

  • Language Is Trivially Simple : A Market Competition Between Grammar And Sematics

    Language is actually trivially simple: continuous disambiguation in grammar, and continuous ambiguity in semantics. The evolutionary problem is achieving in imagination the same level of modeling that we have in body movement. Once we had complex body movement (our neural density is far higher than other creatures) and complex motion-planning, it was somewhat deterministic that we could gain complex verbal planning. These problems seem difficult until you work with recursive neural networks long enough. Then the brain is a very simple thing that just far more neural computing power than any of our competing life forms. An octopus for example, is interesting, because while we have a spine that extends our brain into our body so to speak, the octopus has eight of them, and they do a lot of their own processing the way our heart and lungs do their own processing. Far too much ‘cheap’ philosophy, not enough ‘expensive’ physics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence. Learn something substantial. Philosophy can assist us in determining choice, preferences and goods It is notoriously if not catastrophically faulty at anything we call ‘truth’.

  • What Do You Call A Person Who Believes In Science And Doesn’t Believe In God?

    One doesn’t believe in science. One takes measurements as a means by which to eliminate ignorance, error, bias and deceit, because it is our ignorance, error, bias and deceit that prevents us from seeing the universe as it is, rather than as we wish it to be, or as we evolved to see it to be.

    As far as I know, a scientist is a scientist, and that is the name of those people who practice aristotelianism, vs those people who practice literary idealism (platonists), and those who practice humble literary mysticism (mythicists), and those who practice arrogant literary pseudo-law, pseudo-history and pseudo-science (theology).

    A scientist can testify in court. A fictionalist cannot.

    Truth is a matter of due diligence and warranty. Both of which are only possible through measurement.

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-call-a-person-who-believes-in-science-and-doesnt-believe-in-god

  • What Do You Call A Person Who Believes In Science And Doesn’t Believe In God?

    One doesn’t believe in science. One takes measurements as a means by which to eliminate ignorance, error, bias and deceit, because it is our ignorance, error, bias and deceit that prevents us from seeing the universe as it is, rather than as we wish it to be, or as we evolved to see it to be.

    As far as I know, a scientist is a scientist, and that is the name of those people who practice aristotelianism, vs those people who practice literary idealism (platonists), and those who practice humble literary mysticism (mythicists), and those who practice arrogant literary pseudo-law, pseudo-history and pseudo-science (theology).

    A scientist can testify in court. A fictionalist cannot.

    Truth is a matter of due diligence and warranty. Both of which are only possible through measurement.

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-call-a-person-who-believes-in-science-and-doesnt-believe-in-god