Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • UNDERSTANDING ‘MONEY’ AS TIME (REALLY) (first cause of economics)(very important

    UNDERSTANDING ‘MONEY’ AS TIME (REALLY)

    (first cause of economics)(very important)

    Shares are issued as a loan against future productivity.

    In the case of fiat money (shares in the economy), shares are issued to consumers, who businesses fight for, in order to produce profits some portion of which are captured by taxes that repay the debt. Although tis is still a mistake. We are just borrowing from our future selves. So there is really no reason to pay it back since we will either collect dividends in present consumption and accelerated productivity, or we will collect dividends in taxes produced by returns. Or we will do neither and lose our investment by externalizing that loss in a million ways.

    The trap most people cognitively fall into is starting with the first cause being a commodity (asset of questionable demand) or commodity money (quantifiable asset of unquestionable demand), rather than starting with TIME that we capture in commodities, commodity money, credit money, and share money.

    We are just talking about time PAST to time FUTURE. WHICH ONE ARE WE USING?

    Once you reduce all to time – the first cause of everything – the model is quite simple. Are we losing time we have previously created, or losing time we have hoped to create, and what are the consequences of each? Well the consequences of losing past money is that we can sense the change in capital state and know when we are increasing risk, while losing future money – as we do not calculate expected returns now – we currently cannot. And therefore we consume and risk that capital we have collected over centuries.

    But it is quite possible to calculate those bets and returns just as businesses and financial organizations calculate those bets and returns. However, how do we make certain that the people who take those bets are not violating the requirement for warranty (skin in the game)? Well by making them take the losses personally. Even if fractionally spread across the population, so that we know what our investments have gained and lost.

    The reason that the left has opposed such things (even the simplistic version of the Singapore model) is because such warranty, accountability, and transparency, produce evidence of the reason of resulting inequality, and would give moral license to aristocracy and meritocracy.

    You see, the left needs to lie in every way possible. But we can create means by which lying is very difficult if we choose.

    Anyway. The central idea I would like you to walk away with is that when you think ‘back’ to the starting point of money, or back to the starting point of commodity, you are not thinking back to the first cause: time.

    Because this is why man defeated the dark forces of time and ignorance: by coordinating our actions we are disproportionately more productive than we can be on our own.

    WE DEFEAT TIME. THE MORE TRUTH WE TELL THE MORE TIME WE DEFEAT.

    I hope this teaches some people this lesson since it is the first lesson that all subsequent economic lessons are based.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-03 22:52:00 UTC

  • Think of the language of propertarianism like this: Humans have possibly three e

    Think of the language of propertarianism like this:

    Humans have possibly three emotional drivers: activation-rest, pain-pleasure, dominance-submission. And on top of those three we find our big five/six personality drivers – our sensitivity to those three emotional drivers. And on top of that the rather broad cacaphony of emotions you can see in diagrams of our emotinal ranges. And on top of that the combinations of all those emotions as we react to the complex symphony of emotions we feel when we percieve the any complex thing constituted in multiple causes and consequences.

    But underneath all those layers is a very simple machine that wants to obtain access to a higher ratio of calories under it’s control than the cost to obtain and consume them.

    And it turns out that the list of things we like to collect in our inventory, so that we find security and pleasure in our condition, is fairly small. We call it ‘property in toto’: those things people act to obtain, defend, transform, trade, and consume.

    So, if we speak in the language of the gain or loss of property in toto, we circumvent the apparent complexity of those emotions, the lies and denials that accompany them, we can state all of human perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy, and action as reactions to the changes in the state of their inventory – and nothing more.

    it only seems complex to learn to speak in causes rather than experiences. But the causes are much more simply: “what is this person attempting to acquire, or defend, and is he doing it truthfully and morally or untruthfully and immorally?”

    From this perspective, the argumentative power of propertarianism is so all encompassing because it relies upon first cause. But that said, it’s actually *very simple* compared to the arguments consisting of experiences, analogies, and deceits.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 15:47:00 UTC

  • DECREASE THE COST OF OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE BY INCREASING YOUR USE OF SPECTRA INST

    DECREASE THE COST OF OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE BY INCREASING YOUR USE OF SPECTRA INSTEAD OF ABSTRACTIONS.

    Operational language is extremely tedious both intellectually in the effort it takes to construct it, and in verbosity, in the number of words required to state it.

    But the principle means of simplifying operational language is to speak in spectra, where the relationship between the different terms is far more informative, and far less open to misinterpretation and misuse, than any other method of expression we are capable of.

    So learn to speak in spectra. There are not so many candidates as you would assume. As a rule of thumb if you can organize three you have constructed a candidate, and if you can organize six you have likely constructed a proof.

    And as a consequence, you will make obvious that the relationship between monopoly concepts (ideal types), the desire for monopoly opinions, and the desire for monopoly governments, is caused by the same cognitive bias: the cost in complexity of comparing each additional dimension we must contribute to any comparison, and the inability of most people to construct and use such comparisons.

    In fact, this is possibly the most useful test of intelligence: how many causal axis can you compare? I suspect that this is as accurate a description of the ‘every ten points’ of intelligence rule, as is the method of learning.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-31 09:13:00 UTC

  • IQ = SCORE/AGE, NOT SCORE/DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE (UNFORTUNATELY) (from elsewhere) (

    IQ = SCORE/AGE, NOT SCORE/DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE (UNFORTUNATELY)

    (from elsewhere)

    (a) your test was tragically erroneous. There is no way you have an IQ of 60 because a person with an IQ of 60 cannot compose such sentences or express such ideas.

    An IQ score is a RATIO, that takes into account one’s AGE. But what if ‘age’ and ‘stage of development’ are very LOOSE measure and intelligence is a very FIXED measure?

    (b) childhood tests show one’s stage of development and some of us (particularly those on the autistic spectrum) mature much, much, much more slowly than the rest of society.

    (c) IQ tests are absurdly predictive. The problem is – THEY DON”T MEAN ANYTHING UNTIL NORMALIZED FOR STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT INSTEAD OF AGE. Ergo, until you’re mature (say 25–30) they aren’t ‘accurate’.

    What we DO FIND is that tests beginning around age 7, if we handle the exceptional differences in the autistic spectrum, are absurdly accurate. With as few as 20 questions we can predict life outcomes. The problem is exceptions not the rule.

    (d) Most success in life is determined by i) working hard ii) good manners and grooming, iii) likability, iv) morality. This is what the marketplace for cooperation rewards.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-29 08:40:00 UTC

  • ON A GRAMMAR OF CATEGORIES (IDENTIFYING CONSTANT RELATIONS) So if we are to spea

    ON A GRAMMAR OF CATEGORIES (IDENTIFYING CONSTANT RELATIONS)

    So if we are to speak precisely we need a term that describes the limits of the human brain’s processes of identifying categories, then one for natural categories (invariant), and then one for utilitarian categories (variant/explanatory), and then for partially-substitutable/unpredictable ( variant/explanatory/plastic): this last being the problem of economic analysis, since that is the point at which mathematics begins to break down in the description of constant relations.

    So we need a grammar of identity (category). Because every category is something we identify, by identifying a set of constant relations. (a search function).

    Unfortunately, until we have artificial intelligences, it will be very difficult to quantify, or define some set of limits, that describe the information necessary to form constant relations. (this is, in my opinion, what Taleb’s work is limited by). This is also why I work with via-negativa, since if we cannot describe the thing in and of itself, but we can describe what it is not.

    The grammar of existence prevents substitution (ignorance, error, bias, deceit), by creating a unique identity for every single action, and therefore a category (recipe) of constant relations.

    i’ll try to give this some thought so that I can create a spectrum(series) that gives us a post-rationalist language for this subject…

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-29 07:22:00 UTC

  • CONSTANT RELATIONS: CLASS VS CATEGORY —“One is the notion of category that add

    CONSTANT RELATIONS: CLASS VS CATEGORY

    —“One is the notion of category that addresses the building blocks of thought – which are the categories that are necessary for thinking, knowing, deciding, etc.”—

    I don’t know what building blocks of thought are.

    But as far as I know the process of precognitive, as well as cognitive categorization refers to identifying a set of constant relations. And as far as I know that’s all that can be said about them. This is the function of our physical layers of neurons: reducing sets of constant relations to increasing generalizations that increase the potential for associations, culminating the potential for intertemporal associations.

    Again. As far as i know, this is all that can be or need be said. we do not need the word ‘category’, which in original translation means something on the order of ‘accusation’ or ‘assertion’, or ‘name’:

    category (n.)

    1580s, from Middle French catégorie, from Late Latin categoria, from Greek kategoria “accusation, prediction, category,” verbal noun from kategorein “to speak against; to accuse, assert, predicate,” from kata “down to” (or perhaps “against;” see cata-) + agoreuein “to harangue, to declaim (in the assembly),” from agora “public assembly” (see agora).

    Original sense of “accuse” weakened to “assert, name” by the time Aristotle applied kategoria to his 10 classes of things that can be named.

    —“category should be used by no-one who is not prepared to state (1) that he does not mean class, & (2) that he knows the difference between the two”—- [Fowler]

    So I should probably be more cautious when I use the term, since class(invariant) is at least descriptive, and the relationship between class(invariant) and category (utilitarian or ‘discretionary’? ) is easier to understand, even if ‘set of constant relations’ is existential. So we can express constant relations as either a Class or a Category. I tend to think (and I should probably work on clarifying this a bit), but I use class for existential categories (science), and category for utilitarian (imagining, reasoning).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-28 18:24:00 UTC

  • Um… before I say anything, lets remember that I claim no special knowledge of

    Um… before I say anything, lets remember that I claim no special knowledge of physics. What I claim is to understand the categories of errors man makes that we must circumvent in order to make each generational leap in dimensional knowledge.

    It is very hard to believe that E8 is not the map of the full set of forces, given how ‘simple’ that explanation is, the problem of dark (non-reflective) matter, the apparent volume of that matter in the universe, and that the missing particles (forces), in that model would be ‘heavy’ (massive), and that we are still relatively blind or ignorant to the constitution of space time.

    My current opinion is that the particles(forces) we do not yet understand, if found, will inform us, and that we have spent the better part of a century now making fairly little progress, because of the limits of visible (reflective) matter, and the vast distraction provided by the chimera of mathematical physics, just as we spent the majority of the 20th century in the vast distraction of the logic of language and sets.

    As for the wave function collapse, probability, schrodenger, and multiple worlds, the most simple answer (and the universe keeps telling us it’s simple) is that we do not understand space time. And that all this mathematics is pretty much just “jerking off” for grant money.

    We have one present problem in physics that I know of and that is dark matter. Until we solve that problem, or back into the problem with an explanatory theory (E8), everything else is the modern equivalent of contemplating how many angels can dance on a pin.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-26 19:49:00 UTC

  • MAN IS THE MEASURE OF THINGS THAT MAN CAN MEASURE. (for super geeks) (important

    MAN IS THE MEASURE OF THINGS THAT MAN CAN MEASURE.

    (for super geeks) (important explanation)

    Why is Testimonialism complete?

    Please tell me then, what dimensions of reality exist to test other than:

    consistency of identity, internal consistency, external consistency, existential consistency, reciprocal consistency, and scope consistency in all its forms: scope, limits and parsimony?

    Please tell me what mathematical dimensions of reality exist to test other than identity, number(scale), math(ratio), geometry(space), and calculus (movement in time)?

    There are only so many constant relations possible. Lets assume E8 is correct and the universe consists of that many dimensions (constant relations of forces). Will that large number of dimensions change the number of dimensions required of mathematics, or the number of dimensions of language, to describe it? No.

    There are only so many dimensions that are actionable, and therefore only so many dimensions conceivable for action. There are only so many dimensions of constant relations to reality. That number is lower in mathematics than it is in language for the simple reason that man can learn and choose and alter the content of categories and by doing so, the set of constant relations.

    This is why these sets of tests are complete: until we can act in yet another dimension of constant relations we cannot speak in another dimension of constant relations. Even then, unless time is inconstant, or we find a solution to the problem of inconstant identity (categories) then we are limited in our description (communication) of properties and relations to those categories that we can reduce to analogies to experience. In other words, we are only capable of sensing so many dimensions, and can only test what we can reduce to an analogy to that which we can sense, and as such it is the limit of our senses that determines the dimensions we must state truths within.

    Subjectivity of experience IS A METHOD OF INSTRUMENTAL TESTING.

    MAN IS THE MEASURE OF THINGS THAT MAN CAN MEASURE.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-25 18:40:00 UTC

  • GETTING TO TRUTH, PREFERENCE AND TRADE: PETERSON(conflation), HARRIS(omission),

    GETTING TO TRUTH, PREFERENCE AND TRADE: PETERSON(conflation), HARRIS(omission), and DOOLITTLE(completion)

    The problem of our era (the post-industrial revolution) is not identifying goods to imagine – it’s in eliminating error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, overloading, and deceit, so that we pursue the good, beautiful, possible, and select among the good, beautiful, and possible, the preferable. Thankfully, rather than seeking whatever we can, because of the technologies of investigation and cooperation, and transformation of the world that we have invented, we are less limited by the possible than we are the good, and the beautiful.

    THE RECENT DEBATE BETWEEN PETERSON AND HARRIS

    It provided an example of both ends of the spectrum of failure of thinkers in our era:

    Peterson engages in the ‘sin’ of conflation – conflation is the language of liars. It is the technique we have struggled to escape our inherent tendency to reduce complexity to an ideal type which is easiest to compare. Teachers fall into this trap because they want to convey meaning. Priests and public intellectuals and politicians make use of this technique to create the impression of false goods or consensus.

    Peterson says “it is ok to lie if we lie by conflation for good reason”

    Harris says: it is not necessary to lie by conflation if we separate out the true, the good, the beautiful, the possible, and the preferable. Because at each stage we can ensure we have not violated the previous stage.

    Harris engages in the ‘sin’ of omission (incompleteness). Incompleteness combined with overloading (complexity) is the means by which we are lied to using suggestion by prophets, priests, philosophers, pseudoscientists, and pseudo-intellectuals. Judges fall into this trap because they want to resolve disputes by fault. Authoritarians make use of this technique because they seek monopolistic solutions rather than exchanges.

    But both Harris and Peterson err. But despite their errors, it is possible to make either’s argument – the argument they both seek by different means – using DEFLATION, and COMPLETENESS and avoid both of their ‘sins’: conflation and incompleteness.

    HOW DO WE BOTH DEFLATE AND COMPLETE?

    EXAMPLE : DEFLATING CONSTANT RELATIONS IN MATH

    … identity (category)

    … … number (naming)

    … … … arithmetic (operations, add, multiply divide)

    … … … … mathematics (ratios)

    … … … … … geometry (spatial relations)

    … … … … … … calculus (movement relations)

    … … … … … … … statistics (inconstant movement relations)

    … … … … … … … … equilibria (equilibration between inconstant relations)

    BUT HOW DO WE DEFLATE A TRUTH PROPOSITION?

    Just a when we want to know if something is true, we ask:

    … is it categorically consistent

    … … is it logically consistent (internally consistent)

    … … … is it empirically consistent (externally consistent)

    … … … … is it existentially possible (existentially consistent)

    … … … … … is it reciprocally consistent (morally consistent)

    … … … … … … is it fully accounted? (scope, limits, and parsimony consistent)

    OUR QUESTION: HOW DO WE DEFLATE A ‘GOOD’ PROPOSITION?

    … We must test whether something is true

    … … Then whether it is good

    … … … Then whether it is possible.

    … … … … Then whether it is beautiful.

    … … … … … Then whether it is preferable to the other things that are true, good, beautiful and possible.

    … … … … … … Then whether we can obtain it by cooperation.

    SO WE CAN SOLVE BOTH DEFLATION AND COMPLETION

    Full accounting takes care of the long term. So that takes care of the darwinian question for Peterson, and reciprocity, parsimony and limits take care of the ‘omissions’ that Harris (is much more subtly) making.

    Reciprocity takes care of morality. (where we define reciprocity by criteria: “Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities.”

    THE DESIRE OF MAN FOR IDEALS (one dimensional testing).

    Our optimum means of decidability is provided by anthropomorphization because this allows us to reduce complex criteria into a model that we can test by intuition and experience rather than reason.

    Man may desire a simple means of testing all his ideas, but this is not possible – our intuition is too easily overloaded, which is why clear falsehoods like mysticism, theology, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda are so effective a means of persuasion..

    We invented deflation (breaking things into pieces) to prevent us from ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. And Peterson is advocating simplicity (regressive thinking) instead of achieving the same ends through those means we can insure we do not deceive.

    We use analogy and conflation to convey meaning and understanding. This is called communication. And to argue based upon it is called justificationism. it evolved because we must usually explain our ‘way’ to an answer in order to communicate; we must explain our actions as moral by way of norms; and we must explain our way of permissible actions by existing laws. We have evolved in a social and therefore justificationary world – which is fine, for small homogenous polities of closely related people, who do not need to decide that which is beyond their collective experience.

    Conversely, we use truth and deflation to insure that the meaning we communicate is not constructed from error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception. This is called criticism. Or more correctly: the scientific method.

    Imagine two artists, one who constructs a sculpture by adding layers of clay, and another who removes layers of stone. We construct communication, normative, moral and legal arguments via adding layers to clay. We discover truth, adjudicate differences, by removing ignorance, bias, error, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deceit. By the comparison of construction and deconstruction we perform a competition, and discover truth candidates from our presumptions.

    We use stories (literature) to compose analogies to transfer properties and relations and values (meaning) to those that lack present understanding. Then we use criticism (analysis) to decompose the resulting properties, relations, and values into constituent parts to test whether the meaning that was conveyed is true – we cut the errors, biases, and deceits from the clay of meaning.

    BACK TO OUR EXEMPLARS

    Peterson tries to convey the problem of beliefs that cause extermination by false means, and Harris tries to circumvent that his beliefs cause extermination by incomplete means.

    Unfortunately, Harris makes his mistake because of his background of analysis and his culture, just as Peterson makes his mistake because of his background of communication and his culture. Whereas I advocate that we deny the field to both peterson’s false and harris’ incomplete means of argument, by the requiring complete means of testing truth AND preference

    So, this is why they fail. But it is still possible for us to succeed: by the combination of deflation, and stepping through each test of each dimension until we reach a condition of completeness.

    From there we can choose among the possible, that which is most preferable.

    BUT IN THE END THE LIMITS OF ARGUMENT RESULT IN THE CHOICE OF PREFERENCE BETWEEN TRUTHS

    And from there we will realize that preferences do not coincide, and so regardless of TRUTH or PREFERENCE the only actions we can take that are True, moral, and preferable are those that constitute productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities.

    And it is that last sentence that is the basis of western civilization, and the single principle from which it all evolved.

    That last step is TRADE. And if trading fails, boycott, or violence are the only options that remain, not further argument.

    The jeffersonian, anglos-saxon, germanic, aryan, indo-european oath of reciprocity under sovereignty: the oath of the intiatic brotherhood of warriors.

    In the end, we pursue the true, the good, the beautiful, the preferable, and the obtainable through trade. Or we simply obtain the preferable by force.

    The first question of ethics is “if I can, then why do I not just kill or enslave you and take your women, your property, and your territory?” And denying this is the first lie we engage in.

    So these are not trivial questions. Because if we cannot come to a trade by truthful means, the only means of ‘clearing the market’ is violence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-25 14:20:00 UTC

  • MORE ON IQ What would you rather have, a 20 point increase in demonstrated intel

    MORE ON IQ

    What would you rather have, a 20 point increase in demonstrated intelligence because you’ve learned to think empirically, and another 20 point increase in demonstrated IQ because you’ve learned to think Testimonially? Or the belief that your demonstrated IQ is an inescapable limitation on your possibilities? All great eras provide people with the ability to use technology of thought to augment natural abilities.

    Learn testimonialism and stop worrying about your IQ.

    You can’t change how fast you process. But you can dramatically narrow what you must process in order to obtain insight and advantage.

    Acquisitionism(psychology/metaphysics), Propertarianism(sociology/ethics), and Testimonialism(truth/epistemology) and Natural Law(Law/Politics), and Group Evolutionary Strategy (competition/war) will make the world transparent to you.

    And no, it’s not easy. And yes it will take a long time. But when it all ‘starts to click’ you will see a different world.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 12:13:00 UTC