Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • MY VIEW OF TRANSCENDENCE: TRANSCENDENCE IN FACT —” high trust methods of scien

    MY VIEW OF TRANSCENDENCE: TRANSCENDENCE IN FACT

    —” high trust methods of scientific testimony “—

    Well yes, you are correctly defining my objective.

    How about my version of transcendence, a higher plane of existence, and a higher experience, and ‘godhood’, is one different from the synthetic(drugs), the submissive(divine), the unburdened(occult) the immune(buddhist), and the real(stoic) and that is agency(power/reason): transcendent in fact in the next, not pretense of transcendence in the present.

    So lets say that of the experiences of transcendence I am proposing an additional way. and that it is the only way that is not an illusion in the present, but an achievable fact in the future.

    If I work very hard I can reach a certain state – a state which all other specialists in the technique describe and pursue. A frictionless state of experience where we are free of the frailty of our reason. the question is, which experiences do you seek to free the base of the reptile? the social of the pack? the intelligence of the human? And do you seek freedom FROM something, or freedom of limitations to do something. Do you seek exit or agency?

    I understand what Gautama Buddha was looking for. I can understand what the most disciplined and pious are looking for. I can understand what the lost-lamenting catholics are looking for. I can understand what the german idealists are looking for.

    But there are good ideas and bad ideas, there are good gods and bad gods, and good means of transcendence bad means of transcendence, because those gods and those means of transcendence either produce transcendence by agency or not. And those that do not are no different from shooting heroin. They provide the feeling without the achievement.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 17:05:00 UTC

  • WE FACED OUR IGNORANCE WITH COURAGE AND DESTROYED SUPERNATURALISM Can we face ou

    WE FACED OUR IGNORANCE WITH COURAGE AND DESTROYED SUPERNATURALISM

    Can we face our ignorance, and this time, destroy our pseudoscience and pseudorationalism?

    WHEREAS

    1) Operational descriptions are perfectly testable – informationally complete.

    2) Names of operational descriptions for brevity – but at the expense of lost information.

    3) Names of categories of operational descriptions for brevity – but at the expense of lost information.

    4) Conflation of names of categories of operational descriptions for (a) transfer of meaning by association, (b) admission of ignorance, (c) use to obscure ignorance (d) use for deception.

    5) Use of abstract categories “thing”, “is/are/was/were” for (a) brevity (b) admission of ignorance (c) to obscure ignorance (d) for deception.

    CONVERSELY

    One can speak entirely in operational descriptions limiting one’s self to operational grammar. The uncomfortable problem that results, is the near universal admission of our near universal ignorance, and our use of pretentious prose to obscure our ignorance and deceit.

    This is what I have learned from our failure to defeat the pseudosciences and pseudo-rationalisms of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 19:47:00 UTC

  • My contribution is that I have incorporated costs, full accounting, and operatio

    My contribution is that I have incorporated costs, full accounting, and operationalism into philosophy, and produced a system of categories by which we can algorithmically ‘calculate’ (not compute) tests of reciprocity – including the reciprocity of truthful speech. This is far harder than logic (set consistency), and far harder than empiricism (external correspondence). But it is just as formal as logic and mathematics.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 18:22:00 UTC

  • DEFINE ‘MEANINGFUL LIFE’ IN OPERATIONAL TERMS. I bet you can’t. Because it requi

    DEFINE ‘MEANINGFUL LIFE’ IN OPERATIONAL TERMS.

    I bet you can’t. Because it requires too much honesty.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 06:36:00 UTC

  • ON TRUTH: WORKING WITH SCIENCE, NOT PLATONISM (closing in on the final words on

    ON TRUTH: WORKING WITH SCIENCE, NOT PLATONISM

    (closing in on the final words on truth)

    You are making the error of set comparisons that is so common in rationalist ‘pseudoscience’, by which you use framing to create false dichotomies.

    DEFINITIONS

    —“Thus, if you try to define the concept of “truth” by appeal to the concept of “knowledge”,”—

    I don’t. I define the concept of TRUTH by the spectrum of survival from due diligence.

    I define KNOWLEDGE as anything from awareness to perfectly informed.

    INFORMATION CONTENT UNDER CONSIDERATION

    We work, I work, not with ideal types, but with series (a spectrum).

    We work, I work, not with sets but with supply demand curves.

    We work, I work, not with set operations, but with algorithmic (existential) operations.

    We work, I work, with the information content of reality, not a subset of reality.

    Ergo We work, I work, with actions(reality) not just language(ideals).

    In other words, I work with science, not platonism.

    SPECTRUM OF KNOWLEDGE

    1) True (decidable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(law)

    2) Truthful (actionable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(theory)

    3) Undecidable (inactionable) in the given context of a given question. (non-truth)(hypothesis)

    4) Suspect (undecidable) in the given context of a given question.(non-truth)(theory)

    5) False (decidable) in the given context of the given question.(non-truth)(law)

    WHAT DOES THIS RESULT IN?

    Truth by Triangulation

    One can only estimate by triangulation.

    Truth is a process of incremental improvement of estimations.

    And in fact. If you were to study all facets of man (I have) this is how truth is determined in all disciplines wherein men act upon their statements (‘Skin in the Game’), and those disciplines that are ‘just talk’ do not.

    Hence the similarity in nonsense between rationalism and religious law (Hermenutics) that it evolved from.

    Hence the similarity in not-nonsense between sciences, and the common empirical law that they evolved from.

    CLOSING

    If you understand the past two long posts I have made you will understand the entire history of philosophy in those few words.

    The Iranian laws evolved to prevent retaliation cycles.

    Abrahamic religion was invented to lie.

    Greek philosophy to reform greek law – more reason.

    Stoic philosophy evolved out off greek law to speak the truth.

    Roman law evolved out of stoic philosophy.

    Western law evolved out of roman law and germanic pagan law.

    English law evolved more out of anglo saxon pagan law.

    Empiricism evolved out of germanic and anglo saxon law.

    Nothing else to be understood.

    In other words, if you’re practicing ‘cherry-picking’ using set operations on language, you’re engaging in pseudoscience.

    No dimension of reason’s subsets of reality is capable of proving itself without appeal to the next dimension of reality.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-19 13:43:00 UTC

  • THE STATES OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY (very important ideas in here for serious p

    THE STATES OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY

    (very important ideas in here for serious philosophy students)

    If we define ‘science’ as ‘the invention of instruments by which we produce measurements, with which to reduce the imperceptible and incomparable to the perceptible and comparable, such that it is accessible to reason’ and that ‘the scientific method’ is the process by which we do that, then ‘science’ succeeds in applied science, (chemistry, biology, engineering, programming, mathematics) and is stalled in physics, and has been an utter failure in the social pseudo-sciences, and was an utter failure in ( the pseudoscience of ) psychology – although, in the past two decades, thanks to advances in imaging, have attempted to rectify psychology to some degree.

    So the problem is better stated as “science does well in the use of instruments’ and not so well in the use of reason.

    Philosophy has faced a worse decline than science, if for the simple reason that separating truth, goodness, preference, utility, and possibility in the discipline of philosophy in the same way that physics, chemistry, biology, and cognitive science has been separated in the sciences, has been almost impossible.

    Worse, the continental tradition continues to practice Abrahamic (religious) invention of conflating both point of view (experience, intention, action, observation) as well as the utility (true, good, preferable, useful, and possible), and even worse, the existential dimensions (real, hyperbolic, ideal-platonic, and supernatural-impossible). So the entire continental program is engaged in secular theology and nothing more.

    Worse, despite the (wasted century) culminating in Frege/Kripke, and the knowledge that set operations cannot result in meaningful truth propositions and that ‘all logic is but a test of tautology’ the discipline of philosophy still relies on language and set membership rather than operations and existential possibility (and if necessary, external correspondence).

    Worse, philosophy continues (to talk nonsense) to practice the long tradition of ignoring costs, or full accounting. And while, via negativa, this made sense in the ancient world, where all virtues require little more than refraining from imposing costs upon others – in the modern world, where we can use the vote as a proxy for violence by which to impose costs upon others, this is far less “honest and truthful” a tactic -and instead, is a means of self, and other-deception.

    If your discipline cannot fully account for all dimensions of reality in its propositions ABOUT reality. Particularly in the Possible, GOOD and the TRUE, then the entire purpose of the discipline is nothing more than evading reality (religion) and a means by which to produce falsehoods for the purpose of justifying parasitism on the left, and predation on the right.

    I am one of the harshest anti-philosophy philosophers, precisely because I do not practice ‘cherry picking’ of what I account for, nor do I tolerate conflations in any of the common dimensions.

    The excuse that philosophy is philosophizing is about as honest as religion’s claims – including the entirely falsifiable claim that philosophy ‘does good’.

    Either philosophy is the means by which we develop methods of decidability in possibility, utility, preference, good, and true, where the ‘true’ is that which is decidable independent of goodness, preference, utility, and possibility, or it is, like religion, a method by which – at best – dilettantes produce witticisms with which to deceive honest and moral people, and – at worst – the means by which the crimes of marketers, frauds, priests, academics, politicians, prey upon others for fun and profit.

    So, I don’t see much serious philosophy going on in this world outside of a few individuals who work in the sciences. What I see instead, is a vast number of dilettantes virtue signalling their cunning, while advocating their preferred version of self-rewarding immorality over that preferred vision of self-rewarding immorality of others.

    And that’s probably the most accurate description of philosophy today you will find.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 18:34:00 UTC

  • OPERATIONAL PROPERTARIAN TESTIMONIAL GRAMMAR There is a basic logic of all commu

    OPERATIONAL PROPERTARIAN TESTIMONIAL GRAMMAR

    There is a basic logic of all communication that is reducible to a set of ‘measurements’ that allows us to construct a language (terms) and grammar that make it very difficult to state falsehoods. (this is primarily what Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism provide)

    And given that we understand this grammar, we can also show how suggestion can be created by a series of related statements through unstated but intermediary consequences (suggestive deductions).

    It is very hard to construct lies via that intermediary means of suggestion. I suspect people will try to invent some method, but I think it’s going to be as easy to defeat as religious arguments are today.

    There is a limit to human cognitive ability which is why game theory is of such limited value beyond the second or third order. Just as there is a limit to the number of chess moves a human seems to be able to rationally consider in advance of play.

    So to translate that, it means it is extremely difficult to construct a lie that ordinary people can be fooled by if we make it difficult to do so beyond the third order.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 01:39:00 UTC

  • A SHORT CRITICISM ON METHOD – WHY? You’ve made the case that the Postmodernists

    A SHORT CRITICISM ON METHOD – WHY?

    You’ve made the case that the Postmodernists (we’ll avoid the Marxists for now) not only practice falsehood, but intentionally deny truth. And do so to circumvent discourse (Correct).

    Presumably because they cannot win an honest, truthful, true, and moral (test of reciprocity) argument. You’ve made the case less directly that Postmodernists are not engaging in reciprocity. (Correct) But not necessarily that they are doing so for the purpose of parasitism, or theft, rather than engaging in voluntary exchanges. (I believe you position this as ‘wrong’ or ‘immoral’ but not ‘theft’ or ‘predation’.) Although I do think you at least imply that the

    You’ve made the case that Truth is has been the competitive advantage of the West. (Correct) I am not sure if you have made the point that this reduces transaction costs, and therfore reduces opportunity costs, and therefore increases experimental velocity in a division of perception, valuation, labor, and advocacy.

    You’ve demonstrated that you rely heavily on the literary model of Jung. (Understandable – but questionable.) (Why choose wisdom literature instead of scientific, economic, and historical literature? Isn’t the difference one of precision?)

    You’ve made the case that you have worked for many years to understand the myth and literature of civilizations – and that is was hard work. ( Understandable – but curious why one would choose ‘wisdom literature’ for one’s research? )

    You’ve demonstrated that you’ve kept current with the research in cognitive science and (recently operationalized) experimental psychology. (Obvious, understandable, and necessary)

    You’ve demonstrated that you can identify correspondences between the research and the survival of the content of these myths over many generations: Monomyth, Archetypes, and then less specifically virtues.

    You’ve made the case that one must extract from this (vast) literature, that which allows you to functionally (demonstrably) succeed, and NOT what prevents you from functionally (demonstrably) succeeding.

    I am not sure if you’ve distinguished between the western use of DEFLATIONARY TRUTH, common law, philosophy, and science that preserves competition between institutions and disciplines, and the Fertile Crescent use of CONFLATIONARY WISDOM using Supernaturalism to produce a monopoly that doesn’t preserve competition between institutions and disciplines.

    I am pretty certain that you haven’t distinguished between the decidability of deflated truths and conflated wisdom. Or the difference between low context deflationary truth, and high context wisdom literature. Or the costs of producing each. Or the difference of rule by via-negativa (common law) versus via-positiva (commanded law), and the consequences it produced.

    Because high context low precision monopoly wisdom literature empirically produces very different rates of innovation and adaptation compared to the use of low context, high precision, competitive literature (or the difference in consequences between heroic and scientific (western pagan), and submissive and religious (persian/abrahamic), and familial and ‘rational’ (Sinic/Japanese) forms of literature.

    You’ve tried to maintain the difficult position of conflating the true (decidable), good(commons), preferential (personal) and useful (possible) in the fertile crescent tradition, as a method of argument (decidability) rather than as a method of advice (wisdom). (‘darwinian arguments’).

    And I don’t think you’ve touched on the use of conflationary fictionalisms as methods of deception:

    1) Pseudo-mythology: scriptural monotheism that conflates law, wisdom, and truth. False promise of life after death. Promise of life after death.

    2) Pseudo-science: the construction of cosmopolitan pseudosciences (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises), Promise of paradise.

    3) Pseudo-rationalism: the construction of modern idealism (platonism, the the frankfurt school, the postmodernists) – creating ‘reality by chanting’ (social construction) Promise of power.

    And perhaps most importantly you don’t illustrate, that I know of, that the west lost to conflationary wisdom literature (christianity) in the ancient world, including the closure of the institutions of ‘deflationary literature’ (the stoic schools), and was resurrected by the restoration of truthful literature in the enlightenment, and that conflationary literature is the means by which the postmodernists have adopted the work of the marxists.

    And this all leads me to a set of questions:

    How does one know what to select without knowing what to select already? Or worse, how does one know what NOT to select? From the herd of literary preachers of wisdom literature, how does one decide between them? How does one choose that which I prefer, that which is good, and that which is true whether I prefer it, whether we think it is good or not, because we can only decide between the useful, the preferable, and the good, by what is true (decidable)?

    What is the cost of teaching wisdom (conflationary) literature versus truthful (deflationary and decidable)literature? What are the consequences of teaching wisdom literature instead of truthful? And most importantly, what opportunities do we perpetuate and create by teaching wisdom literature instead of truthful literature?

    How is fictionalism not only a terrible thing to teach, a terrible method of transferring meaning, but it is the means by which we have been defeated in the ancient world, and nearly defeated in the present?

    How is fictionalism only not an answer, but demonstrably the reason for the failure of the west to complete the enlightenment by its extension to the economic, legal, social, and political disciplines?

    Hasn’t psychology largely rescued itself from fictionalism and justifiable criticism as a pseudoscience precisely by abandoning fictionalism and adopting the ‘operationalism’ (in psychology, ‘operationism’, and mathematics ‘intuitionism’)?

    How can one deflate the Fertile Crescent fictionalisms (‘lies’) and still convey them without at the same time merely perpetuating the crime?

    Why is there not enough non-false, non fictionalist, non omnipotent and omniscient mythos, history of heroes, saints, scientists?

    Why can’t we teach people meaning through the lenses of hyperbole of myth, the hyperbole of heroes, the hyperbole of history, the empirical evidence of our history, our truthful speech?

    If conflationary literature is the vehicle by which we have been lied to and the vehicle for deceit, do we not want to teach people how do identify the differences, and is there any value in the conflationary that cannot be obtained from the deflationary?

    I know that in the spectrum of methods by which we can convey meaning that the dream state is the most subjective, the rational less so, the calculative much less so. And I understand that creativity requires that we enable free association by the construction of habits that allow us to easily enter the waking dream state most creative people call ‘the zone’.

    But what evidence is that we need to do so by the very means of exploiting it: suggestion. Deceit by suggestion. Deceit by loading, framing, overloading such that the suggestion is created by statement or by inference or by inference from absence?

    What is the difference between the transfer of meaning, the transfer of truth, and the transfer of deception?

    In other words, Why do we need to teach people to lie?

    —NOTES—

    DIMENSIONS OF REALITY: THE DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR WARRANTY OF TESTIMONY (TRUTH CLAIM)

    1) categorical consistency (identity)

    2) internal consistency (logical)

    3) external consistency (empirical)

    4) existential consistency (operational language and grammar)

    5) rational consistency (rational choice of the actor)

    6) moral consistency (reciprocity – at least intertemporal)

    7) scope consistency (full accounting and limits [no cherry picking, no unlimited theories])

    8) cognitive consistency (test by jury: theory)

    9) survival consistency (test by market: law)

    10) exhaustive consistency (Parsimony / tautology)

    RULE OF INCOMPLETENESS

    1) “No truth proposition can be tested without appeal to the subsequent dimension”.

    FROM LOW PRECISION HIGH CONTEXT TO HIGH PRECISION LOW CONTEXT.

    5) History.

    4) Wisdom: Greek/Roman/Germanic/Slavic Paganism (archetypes) (categories and measures)

    3) Morals: Roman Stoicism (virtues) (via positiva) (subcategories and measures)

    2) Ethics: Roman Law (limits) (via negativa) (further subcategories and measures) (Natural Law of Reciprocity)

    1) Psychology: Acquisitions or stoic ‘pursuits’ rather than ‘psychology’ (all moral intuitions and all emotions can be expressed as reactions to change in state of acquisitions).

    0) Existence: The Laws of Nature (science) further subcategories and measures)

    THE HIERARCHY OF MEASUREMENTS :

    7) THE MONOMYTH – Transcendence (Transformation)

    6) THE ARCHETYPES – Characters (Categories)

    5) THE VIRTUES – Comparison Operators (Values)

    4) THE ORDERS – Axioms (Relations: sets of conditions)

    3) THE NARRATIVES – Operations (Methods of change in state)

    2) THE DISCIPLINES – Mindfulness/Stoicism ( Noise Reduction)

    1) THE SCIENCES – Measurement (reduction of ignorance, error, bias, deception reduction)

    0) THE TRUTH – Parsimony (Most Parsimonious Operational Name of a Recipe of Transformation.)

    Assertions:

    There exists only one objective – transcendence – ‘Agency’.

    There exists only one narrative – personal transcendence

    There exist only a few sub-narratives – methods of transcendence (the N-number of plots)

    There exist only so many non-false virtues – variables of transcendence (stoic virtues?)

    There exist only so many portfolios of virtues – transcendent characters. (Archetypes)

    There exist only so many methods of non-false noise reduction – transcendent mind. ( physical rituals, stoic disciplines, discursive prayer, recitative prayer, buddhist contemplation – and some combination)

    There exist only so many methods of non-false elimination of falsehoods – reason.

    There exists only so many sets of primary operations – transcendent truths.

    Via-Positiva:

    A myth can employ animism and anthropomorphism in an act of transcendence.

    A myth can employ hyperbole (super-normalism) in an act of transcendence.

    A myth can employ any technique to create an immoral condition against which one employs virtues to transcend.

    A myth can employ virtues in an act of transcendence.

    Via Negativa:

    A myth cannot contradict the virtue of transcendence.

    A myth cannot contradict of a virtue of transcendence in an act of transcendence.

    A myth cannot employ a falsehood in an act of transcendence

    A myth cannot employ luck or miracles in an act of transcendence.

    A myth cannot employ fictionalism (idealism, supernaturalism, pseudoscience/pseudo-rationalism) in an act of transcendence.

    If a myth can survive these tests then it is true, and good.

    If a myth cannot survives these tests then it is false, and evil.

    SUMMARY

    I can find no reason to perpetuate the use of fictionalism in pedagogy or even in public speech.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-13 11:59:00 UTC

  • IMPORTANT FOR FELLOW AI THINKERS (great find) 0) I would need to understand the

    IMPORTANT FOR FELLOW AI THINKERS

    (great find)

    0) I would need to understand the operational descriptions of the eleven dimensions, or whether through modeling they have discovered that intelligence requires at least 11 dimensions (which is creepy a bit because this is the same problem with string theory). I will work my way through their publications and see if I can contact anyone there for feedback.

    1) um. Their technique is ‘the proper’ way of describing ‘pure relations’ as geometry (similar to E8 for example), and this is the only way I have discovered of constructing AI’s:through intermediary phenomenon in topological spaces. (what we call lie groups in mathematics). Or what this article refers to geometry and holes.

    2) In the mid 2000s I was working with a few people (from the B2 bomber software team, and microsoft developer and tools) on the use of topology (euclidian spaces), to create software that would spawn processes (agents) that would search topologies (relations in algebraic geometry) of different manifold (topical stores) to produce artificial intelligence, (defeating google)

    I was not in the health, financial, or mental condition to launch that huge an effort. It would have been too expensive. But the theory, must in fact, work. And it is, as far as I know, the solution to the problem.

    3) This work was helpful in my development of Acquisitionism (and later all of Propertarianism and Testimonialism, because to make comparisons possible across all the various topologies one needed a semantic system to provide consistent categories of measure. That system is “PROPERTY”.

    4) This is why I am not afraid of AI’s. We can create ‘consciences’ for AI’s just as easily as we do in humans, and it is the MARKET FOR SOLUTIONS that serve both the desire (acquisition) and the conscience (non-aggression) that allow us to produce non-dangerous artificial intelligences.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-12 17:57:00 UTC

  • Why Is The Koran Open To Interpretation?

    WHY HAS THE KORAN NOT BEEN CONVERTED INTO HISTORICAL AND LEGAL VERSE – TESTABLE STATEMENTS NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION? If the Koran can be converted to law – a sequence of operationally testable statements, as has all of christendom then why has it not been? If the koran can be converted into law so that it cannot be interpreted, why has it not been? To preserve interpretation rather than decidability?

    If the koran can be interpreted, then how can anyone claim it is law? Laws are decidable. Opinions are not. Until you can reduce literature to laws that are decidable, then one has no claim other than that all DEDUCTIONS FROM IT are in fact REPRESENTATIVE OF IT. In other words, if you can’t DECIDE because of operationally testable statements, then the DECISION is to leave open interpretation. Therefore the decision is to leave open interpretation, and justification of it is just making excuses for licensing interpretation. Therefore all actions derived from interpretation are the result of the decision NOT to eradicate interpretation. In other words, jihadists, in all their flavors, and islamists in all their flavors, are specifically licensed by all other muslims because they have not DENIED them the ability to interpret the Koran, by stating the Koran in decidable verse: a sequence of operationally testable statements. In other words, muslims accommodate terrorist ideologies by not regulating their religion such that it is FREE of terrorist ideologies. Jews and Christians have both historicized and legalized their literature. Islam has NOT historicized and legalized its literature, and resists it at every opportunity. With every denial we see only confirmation: islam licenses jihadis, terrorism, and interpretation. The truth is,that the Koran *CAN* be converted into law. At which point it will be untenable. Which is why it has not been done.