Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Man – Mind

    Man – Mind

    Action

    “Man Must Act” (dark forces of  need, time, and ignorance) 

    |BEHAVIOR| property(acquisition/defense) > prey drive > gender drive >
 cooperation drive > personality > intuition > reason > calculation >
 computation > markets > symmetries.

    Minds

    ( … )

    Brain

    HUMAN FACULTIES 1. sense (neurons-nerves) 2. disambiguation (constant relations – cortex), 3. perception(integration-prediction – cortex), 4. intuition (auto-association-prediction) (hippocampus-cortex + valuation(emotion)) 5. attention (attention-prediction) (thalamus-hippoampus-cortex), 6. will (recursion-prediction) (prefrontal, thalamus, hippocampus, cortex) 7. and release of actions;

    Consciousness

    THE RULES OF CONSCIOUSNESS WHEREAS 1. Our attention rotates in a competition between sensation(observation and construction by prediction and reward identification), imagination (possibility by association), holding attention on a goal (possibility by continuous opportunity seizure), and releasing predicted actions (in pursuit of the goal). WHEREAS 2. We rotate between sensation (observation and construction by prediction), anticipating (goal prediction), and storing (remembering by stimulating and rehearsing), on a 1/10th of a second rotation (Theta) creating competition and choice. AND WHEREAS 3. There is no observer, other than the memory of an observation. 4. There are no observations other than sequences. 5. There is no comparison of observations other than to previous sequences. 6. There is no order in sequences other than that created by sequences. 7. There are no sequences other than those of sensations. 8. There is no existence sensed, other than those changes in time. 9. Without change we cannot sense time. THEREFORE Existence is a verb Experience is a verb Imagination is a verb Consciousness is a verb. Because Acting is a verb – and we can only act in time. AND THEREFORE Without action, we produce no existence, no experience, no sequence, no memory, no consciousness. AND THEREFORE There is no observer other than the observations (hierarchy of increasing of sequences of memories in time. AND THEREFORE We see what the camera sees. We do not record images, but sequences of related stimuli. “I AM, MEANING, I EXIST AS, THE HIERARCHY OF MY MEMORY IN MOTION”

    Arousal is not Consciousness

    Confusing Arousal with Consciousness is like confusing the light switch with the light. Just ’cause we can turn off the switch doesn’t tell us how the light is created. We can interfere with any number of parts (Colostrum) and shut down experience. That doesn’t tell us anything. The question is, how does that mushy wetware synthesize past memory present experience, and future prediction, from millions of nerves (measurements) into our rather amazing conflated experiences of past, present, and future? (cortical hierarchy, parahippocampal, perirhinal, entorhinal cortices, and subiculum.) How do we shift between narrow focus, near perception, environmental perception, self-perception, and deep introspection and imagination? (thalamus) Why is it we can react so quickly that we can hit a curveball with a bat? (basal ganglia, cerebellum, and cortical prediction) How do we Assemble memories and experience them? (Hippocampus) What is that feeling of me? (mostly, hippocampus) Why can’t we pin it down. “Cause it’s a verb not a noun”. The continuous change in state in a hierarchy of ever smaller cycles of time….

    Attention

    Neural Economy

    ( … ) Hayek’s knowledge, tradition, habits…. limiting burden of reason.

    The Will To Act

    (necessary  … preservation of the will to act … dunning kruger confidence )

  • Is It True You Need a High Iq for P? (no)

    Apr 27, 2020, 9:37 AM

    —“If I remember correctly, you once stated that an IQ of 120 is required as a bare minimum for having the most basic understanding of Propertarianism. Is this correct? Be honest”—Korey Savoie

    I almost wouldn’t answer this because of ‘be honest’. WTF do you think I do all day? At great personal cost. lol 😉 THE INFLUENCE OF IQ 1 – IQ determines time and effort in learning something. 2 – Cost benefit prediction determines willingness to invest time and effort in learning the subject. 3 – Cost benefit prediction determines willingness to invest in the time and effort of assisting others in their learning of the subject. So when I say “You need x IQ to understand P” it’s in the context of learning the METHOD along with the group. The 140/150+ crowd can do it quickly. Others not. It is very hard to explain and apply the method. That seems to be a 130/140 requirement. But pretty much anyone can understand everything up to applying it, and I’m not sure other than theoretical mathematicians will understand the underlying logic. UNDERSTAND WHAT PART OF THE PROJECT? EVERYONE The psychology (acquisition) sociology (compatibilism), the Ethics (basic reciprocity, telling the truth), and politics (optimum government)? MOST EVERYONE The foundations of western civ in natural law? The group strategies of different civilizations? The history? The JQ/20th C attack on our civ? SOME The method? Reciprocity? Testimony, the grammars? The legal method? Strict construction of law? The constitution? FEW Applying and arguing with the method VERY FEW The operational description of brain and consciousness? The logical foundations? The geometry of thought?

    —“Excellent. For some reason I thought you or Bill or Brandon posted a few months ago that an IQ of 120 was required just to scratch the surface. I haven’t been tested, but I assumed mine to be somewhere in the 100-109.”— Korey Savoie

    It’s because if someone ARGUES with us, that requires we resort to using the METHOD and if they can’t use the method we can’t conduct an argument. So we can understand what it tells us, vs understand how to use it. You don’t need to undrestand calculus to understand most statistical diagrams. You do if you want to argue against those diagrams. You don’t need to understand operationalism to undrestand the findings of operational analysis using P-law. You do if you want to argue against those findings. Understanding WHAT vs understanding HOW.

  • Apr 27, 2020, 10:07 PM —“Can you describe the difference between P and Bakunin

    Apr 27, 2020, 10:07 PM

    —“Can you describe the difference between P and Bakunin anarchy. Just reading something and the description seemed very similar to P but seems to simply lack the formalism around reciprocity.—-

    P is a method. I use the P-method to explain all group strategies, religions, political systems, and moral intuitions. I use P to recommend the optimum political system that has ever been formed – rule of law by natural law. I dunno why you would pick Bakunin. This is Bakunin’s fantasy:

    –“The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual.”–Bakunin

    What is true instead?

    1. Man desires consumption, consumption is increased by opportunity, and opportunity is increased by liberty, but so is irresponsibility. And so is free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, immigration, conversion, conquest, and genocide.
    2. The state evolved to incrementally suppress local parasitism decreasing local transaction costs, in exchange for paying taxes to pay the cost of decreasing local transaction costs. This made markets possible where only primitive trade previously existed.
    3. Man is amoral by nature, and pragmatic. By the institution of parenting, acculturation, indoctrination, training, laws, restitution, punishment, and prevention we invest in his domestication.
    4. Man develops theology, philosophy, ideologies, rationalizations, myths, fantasies, and various other forms of frauds, to attempt to obscure and justify his free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime.
    5. In order to produce the suppression of free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime, requires a power law of institutions of prevention, investigation, dispute resolution, prosecution, restitution, punishment and prevention.
    6. In order to produce a market requires a pareto distribution of assets, so that the organization of networks in an market can produce a complex division of labor and its returns without which the terms freedom and liberty have no meaning.
    7. In order to produce a society that tolerates market competition and the suppression of free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime, requires the resulting distribution of rewards satisfy a marginal nash equilibrium.
    8. Given three possible means of coercion: force-defense (Military-police, government), trade-boycott(commerce-law), and advocacy+insurance-undermining+ostracization(social,education,religion), elites will combine to use and misuse these skills in a competition.
    9. Given that Man varies greatly from barely human to superhuman in physical, social, and intellectual ability, and sexual, social, economic, political, and military value, and given the power, pareto, and nash necessities of distributions, man will sort by value to others by his value in those markets – producing networks of competing and overlapping hierarchies that we call sexual, social, economic, and political class.
    10. As such, rule of law and the independent judiciary provide a market for the suppression of not only individuals and groups of individuals, but elites in all three dimensions of elites, such that sovereignty, liberty and freedom are maintained DESPITE the presence of necessary hierarchies.

    So I consider bakunin like all other idiots as immature, adolescent, vain and ignorant consequences of the industrial revolution and the disregard for the hierarchies in elites of all resulted, and the that these vain, ignorant, immature, adolescent minds gave fertile soil for the false promise of pseudosciences and sophisms of the anti european sense making, and anti-european marxism, neo-marxism, neo-conservatism, libertarianism, postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denial of the foundations of western civlization: that we used markets in everything to defeat regression to the mean by suppressing the reproduction of those that lacked ability to compete in the markets in the service of others. In other words, I view these well meaning fools as useful idiots in the destruction of western civlization. Which is how I pretty much view everyone.

  • Apr 27, 2020, 10:07 PM —“Can you describe the difference between P and Bakunin

    Apr 27, 2020, 10:07 PM

    —“Can you describe the difference between P and Bakunin anarchy. Just reading something and the description seemed very similar to P but seems to simply lack the formalism around reciprocity.—-

    P is a method. I use the P-method to explain all group strategies, religions, political systems, and moral intuitions. I use P to recommend the optimum political system that has ever been formed – rule of law by natural law. I dunno why you would pick Bakunin. This is Bakunin’s fantasy:

    –“The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual.”–Bakunin

    What is true instead?

    1. Man desires consumption, consumption is increased by opportunity, and opportunity is increased by liberty, but so is irresponsibility. And so is free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, immigration, conversion, conquest, and genocide.
    2. The state evolved to incrementally suppress local parasitism decreasing local transaction costs, in exchange for paying taxes to pay the cost of decreasing local transaction costs. This made markets possible where only primitive trade previously existed.
    3. Man is amoral by nature, and pragmatic. By the institution of parenting, acculturation, indoctrination, training, laws, restitution, punishment, and prevention we invest in his domestication.
    4. Man develops theology, philosophy, ideologies, rationalizations, myths, fantasies, and various other forms of frauds, to attempt to obscure and justify his free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime.
    5. In order to produce the suppression of free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime, requires a power law of institutions of prevention, investigation, dispute resolution, prosecution, restitution, punishment and prevention.
    6. In order to produce a market requires a pareto distribution of assets, so that the organization of networks in an market can produce a complex division of labor and its returns without which the terms freedom and liberty have no meaning.
    7. In order to produce a society that tolerates market competition and the suppression of free riding, parasitism, fraud, crime, and organized crime, requires the resulting distribution of rewards satisfy a marginal nash equilibrium.
    8. Given three possible means of coercion: force-defense (Military-police, government), trade-boycott(commerce-law), and advocacy+insurance-undermining+ostracization(social,education,religion), elites will combine to use and misuse these skills in a competition.
    9. Given that Man varies greatly from barely human to superhuman in physical, social, and intellectual ability, and sexual, social, economic, political, and military value, and given the power, pareto, and nash necessities of distributions, man will sort by value to others by his value in those markets – producing networks of competing and overlapping hierarchies that we call sexual, social, economic, and political class.
    10. As such, rule of law and the independent judiciary provide a market for the suppression of not only individuals and groups of individuals, but elites in all three dimensions of elites, such that sovereignty, liberty and freedom are maintained DESPITE the presence of necessary hierarchies.

    So I consider bakunin like all other idiots as immature, adolescent, vain and ignorant consequences of the industrial revolution and the disregard for the hierarchies in elites of all resulted, and the that these vain, ignorant, immature, adolescent minds gave fertile soil for the false promise of pseudosciences and sophisms of the anti european sense making, and anti-european marxism, neo-marxism, neo-conservatism, libertarianism, postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denial of the foundations of western civlization: that we used markets in everything to defeat regression to the mean by suppressing the reproduction of those that lacked ability to compete in the markets in the service of others. In other words, I view these well meaning fools as useful idiots in the destruction of western civlization. Which is how I pretty much view everyone.

  • When Will the Masses Accept Propertarianism?

    When Will the Masses Accept Propertarianism? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/09/when-will-the-masses-accept-propertarianism/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-09 16:42:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259161955702575105

  • When Will the Masses Accept Propertarianism?

    Apr 28, 2020, 10:51 AM P not a belief system. The masses can not “convert to P”, it doesn’t work like that. How then will P change the world? P is a technology and like all other technologies it goes through phases of development and adoption. In the early phases every technology borders on useless. The first computers (and robots) were rare and complex limited use toys seen by only a handful of dedicated specialists and understood by even less. Computing had lots of early dead ends much the same way that we have discovered dead ends in libertarianism or religion. As the technology matured and became more complex (and useful), computers turned into expensive, massive machines that required teams of experts to design, assemble and run. In 1943 Thomas Watson, president of IBM, famously said “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” One of the biggest experts in the emerging field of computing got it wrong. Why? Because he was judging the technology based on its merits in 1943. As computers evolved so did the market and demand for them yet the underestimating of the power of computers never ended. In 1977 Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation said “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Again, a ridiculous statement in retrospect, but reasonable when looking at what computers offered in 1977. It takes many expensive and time consuming iterations for a technology to mature enough that average people can understand it, let alone use it or gain value from it. “640K ought to be enough for anybody.” – Bill Gates, 1981. Another wrong prediction by an expert looking at a technology in its infancy. “Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet’s continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.” – Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995 Could you have predicted the future of the internet in 1995? If the elites could have predicted that a free speech platform would eat their precious newspapers and news networks, forever eliminating the gatekeepers do you think they would have let it keep developing? No one, not me, not Curt, not you, none of us can predict how P will be used in 20 years or its effects on society and I am thankful for that. If the elites knew what we were doing they would have made sure Curt (and maybe a few of you) disappeared a long time ago. Not knowing what’s going to happen is scary if you lack self confidence in your ability to evolve and overcome. Predictions and dreaming about a P future of mass adoption are distractions that don’t move us forward. The power of P will grow at exactly the rate and in the direction that its underlying technologies are growing, no faster, no slower. They will grow in the direct of producing the most value for the people investing in them. Markets in all things. P is at the place where computing was in 1981. Just starting to be useful for people who didn’t dedicate their lives to developing the technology and attracting the pioneers who would take it to the masses. Soon we will see the emergence of the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of P. People who can make applications for P that appeal to the masses. If you want to see P having more of an effect on the world you must do more than follow along and experiment. As Curt works out the underlying technology we must start producing and SELLING solutions. Take the underlying technology and make something out of it that solves a problem for the masses. Sell it, profit and reinvest in R&D. Today everyone walks around with a powerful super computer in their pocket. They use it to do things Thomas Watson would have never imagined in 1943. We can not predict the applications that will bring P to the market and the masses. We must try many things and double down on what’s working. Get out and be creative. Embrace the opportunity in this chaos. In P we don’t predict the future. We make the future.

  • When Will the Masses Accept Propertarianism?

    Apr 28, 2020, 10:51 AM P not a belief system. The masses can not “convert to P”, it doesn’t work like that. How then will P change the world? P is a technology and like all other technologies it goes through phases of development and adoption. In the early phases every technology borders on useless. The first computers (and robots) were rare and complex limited use toys seen by only a handful of dedicated specialists and understood by even less. Computing had lots of early dead ends much the same way that we have discovered dead ends in libertarianism or religion. As the technology matured and became more complex (and useful), computers turned into expensive, massive machines that required teams of experts to design, assemble and run. In 1943 Thomas Watson, president of IBM, famously said “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” One of the biggest experts in the emerging field of computing got it wrong. Why? Because he was judging the technology based on its merits in 1943. As computers evolved so did the market and demand for them yet the underestimating of the power of computers never ended. In 1977 Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation said “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Again, a ridiculous statement in retrospect, but reasonable when looking at what computers offered in 1977. It takes many expensive and time consuming iterations for a technology to mature enough that average people can understand it, let alone use it or gain value from it. “640K ought to be enough for anybody.” – Bill Gates, 1981. Another wrong prediction by an expert looking at a technology in its infancy. “Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet’s continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.” – Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995 Could you have predicted the future of the internet in 1995? If the elites could have predicted that a free speech platform would eat their precious newspapers and news networks, forever eliminating the gatekeepers do you think they would have let it keep developing? No one, not me, not Curt, not you, none of us can predict how P will be used in 20 years or its effects on society and I am thankful for that. If the elites knew what we were doing they would have made sure Curt (and maybe a few of you) disappeared a long time ago. Not knowing what’s going to happen is scary if you lack self confidence in your ability to evolve and overcome. Predictions and dreaming about a P future of mass adoption are distractions that don’t move us forward. The power of P will grow at exactly the rate and in the direction that its underlying technologies are growing, no faster, no slower. They will grow in the direct of producing the most value for the people investing in them. Markets in all things. P is at the place where computing was in 1981. Just starting to be useful for people who didn’t dedicate their lives to developing the technology and attracting the pioneers who would take it to the masses. Soon we will see the emergence of the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of P. People who can make applications for P that appeal to the masses. If you want to see P having more of an effect on the world you must do more than follow along and experiment. As Curt works out the underlying technology we must start producing and SELLING solutions. Take the underlying technology and make something out of it that solves a problem for the masses. Sell it, profit and reinvest in R&D. Today everyone walks around with a powerful super computer in their pocket. They use it to do things Thomas Watson would have never imagined in 1943. We can not predict the applications that will bring P to the market and the masses. We must try many things and double down on what’s working. Get out and be creative. Embrace the opportunity in this chaos. In P we don’t predict the future. We make the future.

  • Disambiguation: Illegal, Legal, Commercial, Commons

    Disambiguation: Illegal, Legal, Commercial, Commons https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/09/disambiguation-illegal-legal-commercial-commons/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-09 16:35:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259160035747340289

  • Disambiguation: Illegal, Legal, Commercial, Commons

    Apr 30, 2020, 11:42 AM [R]egarding: Alcohol, Pot, Other Drugs, Sex, Promiscuity, Prostitution, any unregulated behavior, attention-causing, or Hedonism (unregulated behavior) in general – there is a difference between illegality (prohibition), legalization (private and out of the commons) and commercializing (in the commons). Many if not all unregulated behavior can and should be removed from the commons. What people do in private is their own business. We share the commons.We don’t share private spaces.Prohibited(illegal) > … Private(outside of commons) > … … Craft Production (for home and friend consumption) … … … Commercial (sourced in and marketed in markets) > … … … … Commons (demonstrated in commons) > … … … … … Monument-Memorial (heralded in commons)

  • Disambiguation: Illegal, Legal, Commercial, Commons

    Apr 30, 2020, 11:42 AM [R]egarding: Alcohol, Pot, Other Drugs, Sex, Promiscuity, Prostitution, any unregulated behavior, attention-causing, or Hedonism (unregulated behavior) in general – there is a difference between illegality (prohibition), legalization (private and out of the commons) and commercializing (in the commons). Many if not all unregulated behavior can and should be removed from the commons. What people do in private is their own business. We share the commons.We don’t share private spaces.Prohibited(illegal) > … Private(outside of commons) > … … Craft Production (for home and friend consumption) … … … Commercial (sourced in and marketed in markets) > … … … … Commons (demonstrated in commons) > … … … … … Monument-Memorial (heralded in commons)