Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • THE EXPANSION OF PERCEPTION 1) All language is allegory to experience. The most

    THE EXPANSION OF PERCEPTION

    1) All language is allegory to experience. The most complex terms are simply increasingly loaded combinations of basic experiences.

    2) as we evolved, the content of our communication changed: things that are deducible or imaginable rather than visible, audible etc.

    2) Our experiences are limited. We can only sense so much on our own, with the physical bodies that we have to work with.

    3) Language allows us to collect a greater range of experiences than we can on our own. Even experiences separated by time and space.

    4) Our ‘calculative’ (not computational) ability is limited. We can only ‘figure out’ so much on our own.

    5) Language allows others to help us calculate what we could not calculate on our own.

    6) Systems of measurement allow us to ‘sense’ what we cannot sense with our senses alone.

    7) Systems of calculation and computation let us compare and contrast what we cannot figure out on our own.

    8 ) Language, Measurement, and Calculation and Reason allow us to extend our perceptions, and to create symbols that we can manipulate with the limited abilities that we do possess.

    9) The purpose of philosophy is to test, integrate, reconstruct, rearrange, evaluate, prioritize and articulate our body of knowledge to our advantage given the new information available to our senses by way of our tools, measurements, communications, and calculations, so that we can make best use of the information at our disposal.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-27 11:24:00 UTC

  • TRUTH, HONESTY, COSTS, JUSTIFICATION, CRITICISM COSTS OF TRUTH Hierarchy of Trut

    TRUTH, HONESTY, COSTS, JUSTIFICATION, CRITICISM

    COSTS OF TRUTH

    Hierarchy of Truths by internality to externality of costs.:

    1) True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2) True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    3) True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    4) True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    5) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7) True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    8) Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    CATEGORIES OF TRUTH

    1) TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    2) TRUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    3) HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    ….CATEGORIES OF HONESTY

    ….3.1 Demonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.

    ….3.2 Position: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.

    ….3.3 Opinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.

    ….3.4 Preference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).

    ….3.5 Intuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).

    JUSTIFICATION (SUPPORT) VS CRITICISM (SURVIVAL)

    1) OBVERSE: We justify moral arguments given the requirement to preserve the disproportionate rewards of Cooperation, without which survival is nearly impossible. Law and Morality are Contractual, informationally complete, and open only to increases in precision – we know the first principles of cooperation.

    2) REVERSE: We criticize intuitions, hypothesis, theories and laws to remove imagination, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception from our imaginations in order to identify truth candidates. Reality is Non Contractual, informationally incomplete, and forever open to revision. We do not yet know the fist principles of the universe.

    The reason it took us so long to identify the meaning of truth (Testimony) was that we evolved from moral and cooperative creatures, and we evolved science from moral and cooperative and therefore justificationary reasoning. However, now that we know the first principles of cooperation we can complete the evolution of physical science by adding to it the criticisms necessary for cooperative science:

    Physical Science Criticisms

    i. identity (category)

    ii. internal consistency (logic)

    iii. external correspondence (often called empirical testing)

    iv. existential possibility (existence proof)

    v. limits (falsification) (often called parsimony)

    Additional Cooperative Science Criticisms:

    vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias)

    vii. morality (consisting of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers of property en toto)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-21 11:38:00 UTC

  • So a problem in math is quite different from a more complex problem in economics

    So a problem in math is quite different from a more complex problem in economics.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 19:56:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/622857507149643776

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/622534270104395776

    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/622534270104395776

  • GHANA AND NIGERIA PRODUCING ABOVE UK AVERAGE IQ’S —“As the table above shows,

    GHANA AND NIGERIA PRODUCING ABOVE UK AVERAGE IQ’S

    —“As the table above shows, some African nationalities, particularly Ghanaians and Nigerians, score way above the England mean (and the white British mean)”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-13 22:58:00 UTC

  • A sequence of operations consists of names. I can name that sequence of operatio

    A sequence of operations consists of names. I can name that sequence of operations. An experience or an observation or an imagination of cause and effect is an analogy. Names may or may not convey meaning. THey may or may not convey loadings which we, as moral creatures, feel are terribly important. But operations are names and experiences are analogies.

    I have a pretty low opinion of meaning.

    It’s a vehicle for comprehension yes.

    But that comprehension is by definition loaded.

    And loading and framing are means of deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-11 07:58:00 UTC

  • Operationalism is a Means of Falsification

     [A] criticism from Bruce, on my failure to make clear that Operationalism is a means of conducting a test of falsification.

    –“This monotheistic passion for reduction to operations seems to lead to cul-de-sacs.”— Bruce Caithness

    Bruce,

    1) Operationalism is an attempt at falsification. Just as in math, if we can construct a statement through operations then it is existentially possible. Just as in economics, if we can reduce an economic statement to a sequence of rationally executable decisions. Just as in science, if we can reduce a test to a repeatable sequence of operations, and if we can reduce our measures to those that are possible then the test is existentially possible, assuming determinism in the universe and therefore the constancy of that which we measure (without which no science ,and no theory, can be possible).

    If I conduct tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, repeatability, full accounting, parsimony (limits), existential possibility, objective morality (voluntary transfer), then I have laundered imaginary content from my statements. This is what science consists in: identifying existential information and eliminating imaginary information.

    If I have performed the due diligence to launder by speech of imaginary information, then I speak as truthfully as is possible. I may indeed speak the most parsimonious testimony possible (the truth) or I may not – a matter of error at one end of the possibilities, or of imprecision at the other end.

    I can warranty that I have performed that due diligence by stating that I speak truthfully: I give testimony in public, as to the truthfulness of my speech.

     

    2) One can speak truthfully, and warranty that one speaks truthfully. If one speaks in e-prime (specifying means of existence), and in operational definitions (rather than experiences), it is extremely difficult to articulate an idea that still contains imaginary content.

     

    3) Rather than “leading to cul-de-sac’s” I suspect that this is the completion (or repair) of the critical rationalist research program and the most important invention in philosophy since the failure of that program.

    Just is what it is. I just did a good yeoman’s labor. But between explanatory power, and parsimony it’s a pretty powerful theoretical structure, and it’s pretty hard to defeat it.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Operationalism is a Means of Falsification

     [A] criticism from Bruce, on my failure to make clear that Operationalism is a means of conducting a test of falsification.

    –“This monotheistic passion for reduction to operations seems to lead to cul-de-sacs.”— Bruce Caithness

    Bruce,

    1) Operationalism is an attempt at falsification. Just as in math, if we can construct a statement through operations then it is existentially possible. Just as in economics, if we can reduce an economic statement to a sequence of rationally executable decisions. Just as in science, if we can reduce a test to a repeatable sequence of operations, and if we can reduce our measures to those that are possible then the test is existentially possible, assuming determinism in the universe and therefore the constancy of that which we measure (without which no science ,and no theory, can be possible).

    If I conduct tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, repeatability, full accounting, parsimony (limits), existential possibility, objective morality (voluntary transfer), then I have laundered imaginary content from my statements. This is what science consists in: identifying existential information and eliminating imaginary information.

    If I have performed the due diligence to launder by speech of imaginary information, then I speak as truthfully as is possible. I may indeed speak the most parsimonious testimony possible (the truth) or I may not – a matter of error at one end of the possibilities, or of imprecision at the other end.

    I can warranty that I have performed that due diligence by stating that I speak truthfully: I give testimony in public, as to the truthfulness of my speech.

     

    2) One can speak truthfully, and warranty that one speaks truthfully. If one speaks in e-prime (specifying means of existence), and in operational definitions (rather than experiences), it is extremely difficult to articulate an idea that still contains imaginary content.

     

    3) Rather than “leading to cul-de-sac’s” I suspect that this is the completion (or repair) of the critical rationalist research program and the most important invention in philosophy since the failure of that program.

    Just is what it is. I just did a good yeoman’s labor. But between explanatory power, and parsimony it’s a pretty powerful theoretical structure, and it’s pretty hard to defeat it.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Testimonialism (Completed Critical Rationalism)

    (second draft) (full cycle) (still needs third section) [W]e both perceive, and remember stimuli, and construct and remember relations from that stimuli, and construct and remember layers upon layers of those relations.

    The acts of planning, calculating, hypothesizing, searching, freely-associating, daydreaming, dreaming, and subconscious association attempt to imagine relations between the entire spectrum of memories we can store. Once some (useful?) association is made (found) we must criticize it: determine if it withstands the scrutiny of other relations. We determine if our imaginary relations survive (are truth candidates) by the act of testing those imagined relations to see if they fail or not – and therefore are worthy of our investment or not. We constantly compare the usefulness of the imagined relation with the cost of that imagined relation. The return on those relations determines how excited we ‘feel’ about those relations and the energy expenditure we can risk in pursuit of those relations. Returns can be both subjective and objective. Return can vary from mere satisfaction of curiosity, to personal gain, to a novel invention, to the total transformation of the world of man. As the complexity of relations increases, the means by which we test our imagined relations increases. While we are sometimes able to test our imagined relations by means of introspection, at some point we lack sufficient information to perform such tests, and must resort to both more structured methods of testing, and restore to gaining additional information to see if the imagined relation survives criticism. We perform this expansion of criticism until our estimation of the combination of risk,cost and reward favors conducting the final experiment of acting, rather than conducting either further criticism, or abandoning it as providing insufficient return. [T]he discipline we call philosophy and the discipline we call science consist of a set of methods (processes) which (a)philosophical science, (b)the social sciences, and (c)the physical sciences, use to launder existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences) from our testimony (speech). This laundering is achieved by a set of methodological criticisms addressing increasing levels of complexity of which philosophical science consists of the full set of criticisms, social science a subset of those criticisms, and physical science yet another a subset of those criticisms. Those criticisms consist of tests of: Identity, Internal Consistency, External Correspondence, Existential Possibility (Operationalism), Full Accounting (against selection bias), Parsimony (limits), and voluntary transfer (objective morality).”

  • Testimonialism (Completed Critical Rationalism)

    (second draft) (full cycle) (still needs third section) [W]e both perceive, and remember stimuli, and construct and remember relations from that stimuli, and construct and remember layers upon layers of those relations.

    The acts of planning, calculating, hypothesizing, searching, freely-associating, daydreaming, dreaming, and subconscious association attempt to imagine relations between the entire spectrum of memories we can store. Once some (useful?) association is made (found) we must criticize it: determine if it withstands the scrutiny of other relations. We determine if our imaginary relations survive (are truth candidates) by the act of testing those imagined relations to see if they fail or not – and therefore are worthy of our investment or not. We constantly compare the usefulness of the imagined relation with the cost of that imagined relation. The return on those relations determines how excited we ‘feel’ about those relations and the energy expenditure we can risk in pursuit of those relations. Returns can be both subjective and objective. Return can vary from mere satisfaction of curiosity, to personal gain, to a novel invention, to the total transformation of the world of man. As the complexity of relations increases, the means by which we test our imagined relations increases. While we are sometimes able to test our imagined relations by means of introspection, at some point we lack sufficient information to perform such tests, and must resort to both more structured methods of testing, and restore to gaining additional information to see if the imagined relation survives criticism. We perform this expansion of criticism until our estimation of the combination of risk,cost and reward favors conducting the final experiment of acting, rather than conducting either further criticism, or abandoning it as providing insufficient return. [T]he discipline we call philosophy and the discipline we call science consist of a set of methods (processes) which (a)philosophical science, (b)the social sciences, and (c)the physical sciences, use to launder existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences) from our testimony (speech). This laundering is achieved by a set of methodological criticisms addressing increasing levels of complexity of which philosophical science consists of the full set of criticisms, social science a subset of those criticisms, and physical science yet another a subset of those criticisms. Those criticisms consist of tests of: Identity, Internal Consistency, External Correspondence, Existential Possibility (Operationalism), Full Accounting (against selection bias), Parsimony (limits), and voluntary transfer (objective morality).”

  • Saturate The Environment with Truthfulness and People Will Act Truthfully

    (By: Curt Doolittle, Johannes Meixner and Andy Curzon) [W]e learn actions by doing. But we learn metaphysics by observation: our most effective learning-by-doing comes from recognizing patterns and habits of others in the environment. Things we take for granted as static, rather than open to our modification.

    So I tend to see something like programming as a skill that must be learned by doing. Some people are incapable no matter how many times they try to do something. Some people must do something many, many times. Others must do things a few times. Others just once or twice. Some of us can master concepts purely by imagining doing them a few times, and some of us by imagining the art of imagining doing them instantly. (We are very RARE.) We know that this progression roughy mirrors standard deviations of IQ around a ‘human minimum’ of around 106 (the start of Smart Fraction abilities: verbal articulation of ideas). And that makes sense when you realize that verbalizing complex ideas is in itself, the art of imagining operations in sequence. WHERE DOES THIS LEAD? – Saturate the environment with truth and people will act truthfully. – Saturate the environment with error the people will act erroneously. – Saturate the environment with deception and the people will act deceptively. – Saturate the environment with violence, and people will act violently. Because that is what it means to adapt to the environment.. – Education was the first means of public broadcasting. – Reading was the next, but it was voluntary. – Radio was next and could be done without effort. – Television was next and it was a serotonin-producing drug, that made saturation effortless. – Today the curious can see confirmation and alliance in almost any alternate reality that they can imagine. In Advanced countries people live in their isolation chambers, listening to echoes. Saturation is the best teaching. But how do we ensure people are saturated by truths rather than falsehoods? We make untruthful speech a crime when placed into the commons. Deprive the environment of negativity, and people will not act negatively. And within one or two generations we will saturate people with truth. And as such we: – Saturate the environment with truth and people will act truthfully. – Saturate the environment with trust and people will act trustworthily. – Saturate the environment with confidence and people will act confidently. – Saturate the environment with certainty and people will act certainly. – Saturate the environment with assurance, and people will act assuredly. – Saturate the environment with anything, and people will act likewise. So you see…. “after all, we’re all alike.” Education need not be interpersonal if it is environmental. The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev, Ukraine.