Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • Does Evolutionary Theory Presuppose A Preceding Grand Design Or Natural Law?

    Natural Law (Empirically Discovered Law) consists of general rules, that are location, demographic, custom, culture, and religion independent methods of providing decidability in matters of conflict.

    • (Law is prohibitive -negative- assertions)
    • Negative ethics of Natural Law are usually reducible to the Silver Rule: do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.

    Natural Rights (Desirable Contract Provisions) consist of those general rules, stated not as negative prohibitions, but as positive aspirations, such that all governments must bring into being – regardles of location, demographic, custom, culture, and religion, as a list of those conditions under which the government will exercise violence in order to resolve conflicts, so that prosperous cooperation can continue – given that the government is the insurer of last resort.

    • (Rights are positive -desirable- assertions).
    • Positive Ethics of Natural Rights are usually reducible to the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you.

    By combining Natural Law, and Natural Rights, we produce RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS of the natural CONTRACT for COOPERATION that is necessary for humans (or any sentient being), to avoid parasitism, predation, conflict, and war.

    SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES
    Natural(Obligations) Law and Natural Rights are consequently reducible to a very simple set of laws:

    1- That in the choice between avoidance (boycott), cooperation (trade), and conflcit (war), it is only rational to avoid war in the absence of parasitism and predation.

    2 – That our moral instincts, which punish cheating even if very costly, are reducible to the prohibition on parasitism in order to preserve the incentive for cooperation, because of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, and the disproportionate loss of non-cooperation, and that catastrophic loss of conflict.

    3 – That the differences in our moral instincts are reducible to our reproductive differences:

    • Progressive: Mother/Sister: consumption bias: short term. Feed the OFFSPRING regardless of the quality of the child or the cost to the tribe’s defense
    • Libertarian: Brother: trade bias: medium term. Form alliances to build capital until we BROTHERS have resources of our own.
    • Conservative: Father: save/defense/offense bias: long term. Preserve the ability of the TRIBE to fight competitors

    PHYSICAL LAWS
    These laws are then reducible to very simple physical law: that genetic organisms, particularly animals that can move, discover patterns by which they can capture free energy, use it, and export the unusable as waste heat.

    Or put another way: no organism can survive if it is the subject of sufficient parasitism that such parasitism will reduce its reproductive consequences.

    Ergo: there is no altruism in nature, because its suicidal. At best we find kin selection that is not.

    SO IN CLOSING
    Natural law is a consequence of the conservation of energy in physical law and nothing else.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-evolutionary-theory-presuppose-a-preceding-grand-design-or-natural-law

  • Q&A: —“Curt: Is There Any Morality Beyond Self Interest?”—

    —“Do you believe that morality beyond self-interest is entirely false as a result?”—

    [I] don’t believe in anything, because the term is archaic. I can state that it’s a strong truth candidate, because despite extremely exhaustive efforts by highly biased researchers, we cannot find a single instance of moral action that is not in itself selfish through kin selection.

    Now, when we use the word ‘moral’ we must grasp that there is an objective morality in natural (necessary, consistent, and decidable), and normative morality (local group contracts for different sets of behaviors that produce group benefits from which individuals largely benefit), and individual morality (those subsets of moral choices I choose to follow and not). We conflate these two terms, just as we conflate law (natural law), legislation (contract or command), and regulation (arbitrary edict). But objective and normative, and individual morality are equivalent to natural law (true), legislation (contractual), and regulation (arbitrary choice).

    When I write I use moral for objective morality of natural law, and norm for normative morality of local normative contract.

    We can extend this basic principle from not only sentient cooperative groups, but to non-sentient groups, to non sentient individuals, to plants, to bacteria, to the natural elements that make up the physical world, and to our emerging understanding of the physical world: that we must fight entropy if we wish to survive.

    So it is not only illogical to engage in self-destructive action, but it is physically impossible so to speak, as it would violate physical laws of the universe.

    Now some creatures appear to do sacrificial things, but this is sacrificial only from the (fallacious) human perspective as individual pleasure-seekers. But from evolution and the physical world’s standpoint, once we have exhausted a BENEFICIAL reproductive role we are no longer valuable to the organism (the algorithm) as a whole. Thankfully humans are almost always beneficial to one another when they are alive and not harming one another. Even then, those who harm, may be benefitting the organism (algorithm) “man”.

    Now when we say self-interest, selfishness that signals possible parasitism, or non-payment for commons is something all creatures that cooperate retaliate against. So there is a difference between COMPROMISE (rational self-interest) and ABSOLUTE (and therefore irrational) self-interest. What is rational for all of us is to preserve the incentive to cooperate, and to prevent providing incentive to retaliate, yet being defensive enough to discourage offense against us.

    So in this sense, it is always rational to compromise with those with whom you are compatible, because compromise with those with whom you are compatible is in your self-interest.

    There are no rules without limits. If we cannot state the limits of any general rule, we state a falsehood because we cannot state a truth. This is why the wise speak in teleological ethics (science/outcomes), the informed but inexperienced and deceitful speak in deontological ethics ( rationalism/rules ), the young, lacking knowlege and experience in virtues (analogy/imitations), and children in punishments and rewards (goods and bads).

    I hope this provided the answer you sought.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy or Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&A: —“Curt: Is There Any Morality Beyond Self Interest?”—

    —“Do you believe that morality beyond self-interest is entirely false as a result?”—

    [I] don’t believe in anything, because the term is archaic. I can state that it’s a strong truth candidate, because despite extremely exhaustive efforts by highly biased researchers, we cannot find a single instance of moral action that is not in itself selfish through kin selection.

    Now, when we use the word ‘moral’ we must grasp that there is an objective morality in natural (necessary, consistent, and decidable), and normative morality (local group contracts for different sets of behaviors that produce group benefits from which individuals largely benefit), and individual morality (those subsets of moral choices I choose to follow and not). We conflate these two terms, just as we conflate law (natural law), legislation (contract or command), and regulation (arbitrary edict). But objective and normative, and individual morality are equivalent to natural law (true), legislation (contractual), and regulation (arbitrary choice).

    When I write I use moral for objective morality of natural law, and norm for normative morality of local normative contract.

    We can extend this basic principle from not only sentient cooperative groups, but to non-sentient groups, to non sentient individuals, to plants, to bacteria, to the natural elements that make up the physical world, and to our emerging understanding of the physical world: that we must fight entropy if we wish to survive.

    So it is not only illogical to engage in self-destructive action, but it is physically impossible so to speak, as it would violate physical laws of the universe.

    Now some creatures appear to do sacrificial things, but this is sacrificial only from the (fallacious) human perspective as individual pleasure-seekers. But from evolution and the physical world’s standpoint, once we have exhausted a BENEFICIAL reproductive role we are no longer valuable to the organism (the algorithm) as a whole. Thankfully humans are almost always beneficial to one another when they are alive and not harming one another. Even then, those who harm, may be benefitting the organism (algorithm) “man”.

    Now when we say self-interest, selfishness that signals possible parasitism, or non-payment for commons is something all creatures that cooperate retaliate against. So there is a difference between COMPROMISE (rational self-interest) and ABSOLUTE (and therefore irrational) self-interest. What is rational for all of us is to preserve the incentive to cooperate, and to prevent providing incentive to retaliate, yet being defensive enough to discourage offense against us.

    So in this sense, it is always rational to compromise with those with whom you are compatible, because compromise with those with whom you are compatible is in your self-interest.

    There are no rules without limits. If we cannot state the limits of any general rule, we state a falsehood because we cannot state a truth. This is why the wise speak in teleological ethics (science/outcomes), the informed but inexperienced and deceitful speak in deontological ethics ( rationalism/rules ), the young, lacking knowlege and experience in virtues (analogy/imitations), and children in punishments and rewards (goods and bads).

    I hope this provided the answer you sought.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy or Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute

  • logic of law. thereby recognizing finally, that it is natural law, that is the b

    logic of law. thereby recognizing finally, that it is natural law, that is the baisis of western

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 18:25:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765253207018831872

    Reply addressees: @JaimelHemphill @pdamra @mmurraypolitics

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

    IN REPLY TO:

    @JaimelHemphill

    @curtdoolittle @pdamra @dmataconis @mmurraypolitics Don’t worry- We’re too evolved to treat you like your ancestors treated us.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

  • So while others made rules, we made NATURAL LAW, and came close to strict constr

    So while others made rules, we made NATURAL LAW, and came close to strict construction: a formal

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 18:25:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765253101653745664

    Reply addressees: @JaimelHemphill @pdamra @mmurraypolitics

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

    IN REPLY TO:

    @JaimelHemphill

    @curtdoolittle @pdamra @dmataconis @mmurraypolitics Don’t worry- We’re too evolved to treat you like your ancestors treated us.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

  • into an international body of DECIDABLE law, crossing all cultures: natural law

    into an international body of DECIDABLE law, crossing all cultures: natural law.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 18:12:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765249770810118144

    Reply addressees: @JaimelHemphill @pdamra @mmurraypolitics

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

    IN REPLY TO:

    @JaimelHemphill

    @curtdoolittle @pdamra @dmataconis @mmurraypolitics Don’t worry- We’re too evolved to treat you like your ancestors treated us.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

  • The romans effectively industrialize ’empirical’ (natural) law

    The romans effectively industrialize ’empirical’ (natural) law.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 18:02:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765247413493895172

    Reply addressees: @JaimelHemphill @pdamra @mmurraypolitics

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

    IN REPLY TO:

    @JaimelHemphill

    @curtdoolittle @pdamra @dmataconis @mmurraypolitics Don’t worry- We’re too evolved to treat you like your ancestors treated us.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

  • The greeks developed argument to order, but it was the stoics who created natura

    The greeks developed argument to order, but it was the stoics who created natural law.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 18:01:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765247072543047680

    Reply addressees: @JaimelHemphill @pdamra @mmurraypolitics

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

    IN REPLY TO:

    @JaimelHemphill

    @curtdoolittle @pdamra @dmataconis @mmurraypolitics Don’t worry- We’re too evolved to treat you like your ancestors treated us.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

  • Q&A: —“CURT: IS THERE ANY MORALITY BEYOND SELF INTEREST?”— —“Do you believ

    Q&A: —“CURT: IS THERE ANY MORALITY BEYOND SELF INTEREST?”—

    —“Do you believe that morality beyond self-interest is entirely false as a result?”—

    I don’t believe in anything, because the term is archaic. I can state that it’s a strong truth candidate, because despite extremely exhaustive efforts by highly biased researchers, we cannot find a single instance of moral action that is not in itself selfish through kin selection.

    Now, when we use the word ‘moral’ we must grasp that there is an objective morality in natural (necessary, consistent, and decidable), and normative morality (local group contracts for different sets of behaviors that produce group benefits from which individuals largely benefit), and individual morality (those subsets of moral choices I choose to follow and not). We conflate these two terms, just as we conflate law (natural law), legislation (contract or command), and regulation (arbitrary edict). But objective and normative, and individual morality are equivalent to natural law (true), legislation (contractual), and regulation (arbitrary choice).

    When I write I use moral for objective morality of natural law, and norm for normative morality of local normative contract.

    We can extend this basic principle from not only sentient cooperative groups, but to non-sentient groups, to non sentient individuals, to plants, to bacteria, to the natural elements that make up the physical world, and to our emerging understanding of the physical world: that we must fight entropy if we wish to survive.

    So it is not only illogical to engage in self-destructive action, but it is physically impossible so to speak, as it would violate physical laws of the universe.

    Now some creatures appear to do sacrificial things, but this is sacrificial only from the (fallacious) human perspective as individual pleasure-seekers. But from evolution and the physical world’s standpoint, once we have exhausted a BENEFICIAL reproductive role we are no longer valuable to the organism (the algorithm) as a whole. Thankfully humans are almost always beneficial to one another when they are alive and not harming one another. Even then, those who harm, may be benefitting the organism (algorithm) “man”.

    Now when we say self-interest, selfishness that signals possible parasitism, or non-payment for commons is something all creatures that cooperate retaliate against. So there is a difference between COMPROMISE (rational self-interest) and ABSOLUTE (and therefore irrational) self-interest. What is rational for all of us is to preserve the incentive to cooperate, and to prevent providing incentive to retaliate, yet being defensive enough to discourage offense against us.

    So in this sense, it is always rational to compromise with those with whom you are compatible, because compromise with those with whom you are compatible is in your self-interest.

    There are no rules without limits. If we cannot state the limits of any general rule, we state a falsehood because we cannot state a truth. This is why the wise speak in teleological ethics (science/outcomes), the informed but inexperienced and deceitful speak in deontological ethics ( rationalism/rules ), the young, lacking knowlege and experience in virtues (analogy/imitations), and children in punishments and rewards (goods and bads).

    I hope this provided the answer you sought.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy or Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 05:52:00 UTC

  • “All improvement in cooperation comes from parallel increases in informational q

    —“All improvement in cooperation comes from parallel increases in informational quality++ and theft/fraud/conspiracy suppression–.”— something I posted on twitter in response to this question.

    Man is a rational actor. He acts in his rational self-interest at all times, choosing immoral and moral actions by intuitive cost vs benefit; and we can find no exceptions other than kin selection – and arguably that is also in one’s self-interest.

    For this reason we do not make the world a better place, but instead, we create institutions that raise the cost of unhelpful behaviors, and reduce the cost of helpful behaviors.

    Some of the methods we use to suppress immoral behaviors are obvious (law, restitution, punishment), and some are not (the conversion of property from material goods to partial-title) because they make theft more difficult.

    Others are difficult to admit to: that the differences between wealthier and poorer societies is generally explained by the relative sizes of the upper and lower genetic classes, meaning that no amount of effort will help some countries prosper because there are just too many people at the bottom to incentivize with the inventiveness and productivity at the top, using organization provided by the middle.

    So while a one-child policy is necessary in Africa, the Muslim world, and south america it cannot be implemented without the equivalent of the Red Army or the Revolutionary Guard. Which India’s weakness – even literacy has been a problem.

    So we cannot eliminate a tendency as much as eliminate generations with those tendencies, and provide institutions that preserve positive and suppress negative tendencies.

    Man evolves locally and fast. But we must help man do so just as we did under agrarianism – which was not a kind process to those who could not transition to it. They are largely gone. Just as the various other incarnations of man are gone. And we eliminated them from the planet, while walking on foot, over a comparatively small number of millennia.

    If we look back over the past century, most of the harm was done by the communist movement, the facist movement to resist it, and the capitalist movement to eradicate it. The communist movement promised utopian results to backward nations that had not transitioned through the enlightenment. Just as Islam is a utopian movement promising utopian results to backward nations, and using the same strategy as communism except distributed on moral and religoius grounds using weaponized reproduction rather than distributed on economic and political grounds using direct rebellion – a slower path to the same ends: changing the order to one suitable to the underclasses and less suitable to the middle and upper classes.

    The pseudoscientific communist economic movement(Marx) was accompanied by the pseudoscientific social science movement (boaz) and the pseudoscientific psychological movement (freud), and less harmflly the pseudoscientific mathematical moveent( Cantor). And then when by the pseudoscientific cultural movvement (the frankfurt school).

    So my prescription for improvement for mankind is that we can continue the suppression of new methods of theft and fraud by defending the informational commons the same way we defend the air, land, and water from pollution, our physical commons, infrastructure and monuments from physical damage, and our rule of law, govenrment from damage, and our religions and traditions from damage: By outlawing pseudoscience.

    We could not outlaw pseudoscience until very recently because we have only begun to understand truth at scale in the 20th century.

    But now that we know, we can force upon people a warranty of due diligence in speech inserted into the commons the same way we force a warranty of due diligenc upon people who provide goods and services.

    Those due diligences are (Painfully Briefly):

    1 – categorical consistency (identity and non conflation)

    2 – internal consistency (logical)

    3 – external correspondence (empirical consistency)

    4 – existential possibility (operational language)

    5 – ethical consistency (consisting of fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same.)

    6 – scope consistency (defining limits, full accounting, and parsimony)

    We have many such other requirements in the law, and we use these requirements with academics when publishing. And there is no reason we do not demand these same warranties of political speech, which is far more consequential than academic speech.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    KIev, Ukraine

    http://www.drewgl.com/posts/4241

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-14 22:54:00 UTC