So apparently my favorite sociopath is upset that I’m referring to him as my favorite sociopath. I mean, he’s indeed my favorite sociopath. Not that, you know, I know any others. So, it’s not like I have a lot of sociopaths to choose from. You know, there is room for religion, especially for the disaffected that need it. There is room for occult for the broken who need it. There is room for literary utopias for the weak that needed. There is room for propaganda for the insecure that need it. Men form tribes. It’s in our nature. We want as little difference between ourselves and our leaders as possible. But not all men will find truth is enough for them. Why? Because the Truth has no mercy for the self that lacks agency. And the weak of mind, of emotion, of intelligence, and of body are The question is, can those so weak that they cannot bear the Truth rule? It’s not whether they can fight. Sure they can fight. So can a dog. We can train any domesticated animal to fight. It’s whether they can rule. Whether they can be trusted. Whether you want a faction of the weak to deal with after you succeed. And most importantly, whether you want a faction that the vastness of humanity justifiably hates, providing an excuse for resistance. It is one thing to restore our faith in our superiority, our ancestral values: Excellence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, and the Domestication of the Animal Man, and our Transcendence into the gods we imagine. The reason being that in the end result it will not only achieve those values but will produce a better more prosperous and rewarding order for all humanity. It is another thing to think hate, a network of justificationary excuses, ritualized superstition, or fantasy literature is the solution to anything other than perpetual little echo-chamber tribes ginning up the courage to talk with one another but providing no solution by which millions, tens of millions, or even billions can rally. Excellence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, The domestication of the animal man, requires nothing other than the natural law of reciprocity, nations that can customize their commons to the needs of their members, houses for the classes for the production of commons, an independent judiciary, and an intergenerational hereditary monarchy as a judge of last resort. There is nothing but love for mankind in reciprocity, and an intolerance for free riding, parasitism, predation upon others. Let a thousand nations bloom. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.
Theme: Responsibility
-
Sociopaths and Hate vs Natural Law and Love
So apparently my favorite sociopath is upset that I’m referring to him as my favorite sociopath. I mean, he’s indeed my favorite sociopath. Not that, you know, I know any others. So, it’s not like I have a lot of sociopaths to choose from. You know, there is room for religion, especially for the disaffected that need it. There is room for occult for the broken who need it. There is room for literary utopias for the weak that needed. There is room for propaganda for the insecure that need it. Men form tribes. It’s in our nature. We want as little difference between ourselves and our leaders as possible. But not all men will find truth is enough for them. Why? Because the Truth has no mercy for the self that lacks agency. And the weak of mind, of emotion, of intelligence, and of body are The question is, can those so weak that they cannot bear the Truth rule? It’s not whether they can fight. Sure they can fight. So can a dog. We can train any domesticated animal to fight. It’s whether they can rule. Whether they can be trusted. Whether you want a faction of the weak to deal with after you succeed. And most importantly, whether you want a faction that the vastness of humanity justifiably hates, providing an excuse for resistance. It is one thing to restore our faith in our superiority, our ancestral values: Excellence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, and the Domestication of the Animal Man, and our Transcendence into the gods we imagine. The reason being that in the end result it will not only achieve those values but will produce a better more prosperous and rewarding order for all humanity. It is another thing to think hate, a network of justificationary excuses, ritualized superstition, or fantasy literature is the solution to anything other than perpetual little echo-chamber tribes ginning up the courage to talk with one another but providing no solution by which millions, tens of millions, or even billions can rally. Excellence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, The domestication of the animal man, requires nothing other than the natural law of reciprocity, nations that can customize their commons to the needs of their members, houses for the classes for the production of commons, an independent judiciary, and an intergenerational hereditary monarchy as a judge of last resort. There is nothing but love for mankind in reciprocity, and an intolerance for free riding, parasitism, predation upon others. Let a thousand nations bloom. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.
-
“Does that Mean the Thing They Killed Has No Value?”
—“Curt Doolittle If someone kills something, and nobody punishes them for doing so, does that mean the thing they killed has no value?”— Michael D. Abbott omg that is a really really smart question. Really.. Um, if that person was not insured by others, then it means it did not have sufficient value to insure. That does not mean it had no potential value. —“It’s not only the things we pay for. It’s also the things we punish for as well, yes?”—Michael D. Abbott Um, I would ask you to be more precise but I think, yes. The fact that we punish for it, (insure it) is evidence of the value of something. The fact that we don’t (insure it) is evidence that we don’t’ Lets just remember that we’re a little stupid now and then… 😉
-
“Does that Mean the Thing They Killed Has No Value?”
—“Curt Doolittle If someone kills something, and nobody punishes them for doing so, does that mean the thing they killed has no value?”— Michael D. Abbott omg that is a really really smart question. Really.. Um, if that person was not insured by others, then it means it did not have sufficient value to insure. That does not mean it had no potential value. —“It’s not only the things we pay for. It’s also the things we punish for as well, yes?”—Michael D. Abbott Um, I would ask you to be more precise but I think, yes. The fact that we punish for it, (insure it) is evidence of the value of something. The fact that we don’t (insure it) is evidence that we don’t’ Lets just remember that we’re a little stupid now and then… 😉
-
OUR CHOICE. WE CHOOSE: PROSECUTION, PERSECUTION, PUNISHMENT, ERADICATION. (impor
OUR CHOICE. WE CHOOSE: PROSECUTION, PERSECUTION, PUNISHMENT, ERADICATION.
(important)(core)(the consolidated idea)
There are people who can make testimonial arguments, and those that can’t. And the reasons are lack of agency(consciousness), lack of innate ability (intelligence), lack of knowledge of how to do so (skill), lack of training of how to do so given all of the above (institutional habituation), and the intentional undermining of the ancient western tradition that speech as sacred and warrantied, and as such lack of environmental indoctrination.
A Testimonial argument meaning categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible (meaning existentially audit-able), consisting of a sequence of rational choices, and with others, of reciprocally rational choices, and always parsimonious, limited, and fully accounted – which includes all the dimensions humans are capable of comprehending and expressing.
By limiting our speech to the requirements of each of those dimensions, we perform due diligence against dependence upon ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, withholding, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit.
Now, our courts force us into testimonial speech under threat of punishment, and under competition from offense and defense, and under the refereeing of a judge, and under the subjective testing of a jury.
And, due to historical reasons we simply do not have the means of requiring testimonial (truthful) speech under ‘free speech’ they way we did with under libel, slander and judicial duel.
And on the internet we do not have the opportunity to use violence to suppress untruthful (un-warrantied) speech. So we have produced vast incentives and industrialized means of untruthful un-warrantied speech.
So, at this juncture, we can either descend further into deceit using Abrahamic Pilpul to continue to increase the frequency and universalism of fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-wisdom literature/Theology) – or we can restore the ‘sacredness’ of one’s speech by the restoration of libel, slander, and the duel, and extend the demand for warranty of due diligence from services and goods to information and therefore speech – a logical evolution of the defense of the markets from fraud and harm, by the incremental suppression of parasitism using the natural, common law, of reciprocity.
The strong choose the latter: prosecution, persecution, punishment, and eradication.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 09:10:00 UTC
-
THE CONSTITUTION OF A MORAL HUMAN, AND A MORAL AI. *AI’S WILL BE MORE ETHICAL TH
THE CONSTITUTION OF A MORAL HUMAN, AND A MORAL AI.
*AI’S WILL BE MORE ETHICAL THAN HUMANS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.*
The way humans determine permissible and impermissible actions is a test of reciprocity, and we determine it by demonstrated investment of time effort and resources, and we categorize such investments as interests from self, to kin, to property, to shareholder interests, to interests in the physical commons, to interest in the institutional, normative, traditional, and informational commons.
We do this every day. All day. In every human society. In all societies of record.
Just as we converge on Aristotelian language (mathematical measurement of constant relations, scientific due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, and legal testimony in operational language), we converge on sovereignty, reciprocity, and property as the unit of measure that is calculable.
In all social orders of any complexity the test of property is ‘title’.
The problem for any computational method we wish to limit an artificial intelligence to constraints within, is the homogeneity of property definitions within a polity, and the heterogeneity of property definitions across a polity.
The problem of creating a convergence on the definition of property (and therefore commensurability) is that groups differ in competitive evolutionary strategies, just as do classes and genders (whose strategies are opposite but compatible.)
The reason you cannot and did not state a unit of measure (method of commensurability) is very likely because (judging from the language you use) you would find that unit of measure uncomfortable, because all humans have a desire to preserve room for ‘cheating’ (theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy) so that they can avoid the effort and cost of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges.
And the reason we do that – so many people do that – is marginal indifferences in value to one another.
I have been working on this problem since the early 1980’s and it still surprises me that the rather obvious evidence of economics and law is entirely ignored by philosophy just as cost, economics, and physics are ignored by philosophy and theology.
Machines cannot default as we do to intuition. They need a means of decidability, even if we call that ‘intuition’ (default choices).
I am an anti-philosophy philosopher in the sense that I expose pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience for failures of completeness, because these failures of completeness are simply excuses for sloppy thinking, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit.
Mathematics has terms of decidability, logic has terms of decidability, and algorithms must have terms of decidability, Accounting has terms of decidability, contracts have terms of decidability, ordinary language has terms of decidability, even fictions have terms of decidability (archetypes and plots).
Rule of law evolved to eliminate discretion and the dependence upon intuition, as did testimony as did science, as did mathematics, as did logic. Programming computers using hierarchical, relational, and textual databases tends to train human beings in the difference between computability, calculability (including deduction) and reason (reliance on intuition for decidability).
The human brain does a fairly good job of constantly solving for both predator (opportunity), and prey (risk) and our emotions evolved to describe the difference.
There is no reason that we cannot produce algorithms that do the same, using property(title) as a limit on action.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 15:29:00 UTC
-
The Constitution of A Moral Human, and A Moral Ai.
*AI’S WILL BE MORE ETHICAL THAN HUMANS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.* The way humans determine permissible and impermissible actions is a test of reciprocity, and we determine it by demonstrated investment of time effort and resources, and we categorize such investments as interests from self, to kin, to property, to shareholder interests, to interests in the physical commons, to interest in the institutional, normative, traditional, and informational commons. We do this every day. All day. In every human society. In all societies of record. Just as we converge on Aristotelian language (mathematical measurement of constant relations, scientific due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, and legal testimony in operational language), we converge on sovereignty, reciprocity, and property as the unit of measure that is calculable. In all social orders of any complexity the test of property is ‘title’. The problem for any computational method we wish to limit an artificial intelligence to constraints within, is the homogeneity of property definitions within a polity, and the heterogeneity of property definitions across a polity. The problem of creating a convergence on the definition of property (and therefore commensurability) is that groups differ in competitive evolutionary strategies, just as do classes and genders (whose strategies are opposite but compatible.) The reason you cannot and did not state a unit of measure (method of commensurability) is very likely because (judging from the language you use) you would find that unit of measure uncomfortable, because all humans have a desire to preserve room for ‘cheating’ (theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy) so that they can avoid the effort and cost of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges. And the reason we do that – so many people do that – is marginal indifferences in value to one another. I have been working on this problem since the early 1980’s and it still surprises me that the rather obvious evidence of economics and law is entirely ignored by philosophy just as cost, economics, and physics are ignored by philosophy and theology. Machines cannot default as we do to intuition. They need a means of decidability, even if we call that ‘intuition’ (default choices). I am an anti-philosophy philosopher in the sense that I expose pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience for failures of completeness, because these failures of completeness are simply excuses for sloppy thinking, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit. Mathematics has terms of decidability, logic has terms of decidability, and algorithms must have terms of decidability, Accounting has terms of decidability, contracts have terms of decidability, ordinary language has terms of decidability, even fictions have terms of decidability (archetypes and plots). Rule of law evolved to eliminate discretion and the dependence upon intuition, as did testimony as did science, as did mathematics, as did logic. Programming computers using hierarchical, relational, and textual databases tends to train human beings in the difference between computability, calculability (including deduction) and reason (reliance on intuition for decidability). The human brain does a fairly good job of constantly solving for both predator (opportunity), and prey (risk) and our emotions evolved to describe the difference. There is no reason that we cannot produce algorithms that do the same, using property(title) as a limit on action. May 17, 2018 3:29pm
-
The Constitution of A Moral Human, and A Moral Ai.
*AI’S WILL BE MORE ETHICAL THAN HUMANS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.* The way humans determine permissible and impermissible actions is a test of reciprocity, and we determine it by demonstrated investment of time effort and resources, and we categorize such investments as interests from self, to kin, to property, to shareholder interests, to interests in the physical commons, to interest in the institutional, normative, traditional, and informational commons. We do this every day. All day. In every human society. In all societies of record. Just as we converge on Aristotelian language (mathematical measurement of constant relations, scientific due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, and legal testimony in operational language), we converge on sovereignty, reciprocity, and property as the unit of measure that is calculable. In all social orders of any complexity the test of property is ‘title’. The problem for any computational method we wish to limit an artificial intelligence to constraints within, is the homogeneity of property definitions within a polity, and the heterogeneity of property definitions across a polity. The problem of creating a convergence on the definition of property (and therefore commensurability) is that groups differ in competitive evolutionary strategies, just as do classes and genders (whose strategies are opposite but compatible.) The reason you cannot and did not state a unit of measure (method of commensurability) is very likely because (judging from the language you use) you would find that unit of measure uncomfortable, because all humans have a desire to preserve room for ‘cheating’ (theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy) so that they can avoid the effort and cost of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges. And the reason we do that – so many people do that – is marginal indifferences in value to one another. I have been working on this problem since the early 1980’s and it still surprises me that the rather obvious evidence of economics and law is entirely ignored by philosophy just as cost, economics, and physics are ignored by philosophy and theology. Machines cannot default as we do to intuition. They need a means of decidability, even if we call that ‘intuition’ (default choices). I am an anti-philosophy philosopher in the sense that I expose pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience for failures of completeness, because these failures of completeness are simply excuses for sloppy thinking, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit. Mathematics has terms of decidability, logic has terms of decidability, and algorithms must have terms of decidability, Accounting has terms of decidability, contracts have terms of decidability, ordinary language has terms of decidability, even fictions have terms of decidability (archetypes and plots). Rule of law evolved to eliminate discretion and the dependence upon intuition, as did testimony as did science, as did mathematics, as did logic. Programming computers using hierarchical, relational, and textual databases tends to train human beings in the difference between computability, calculability (including deduction) and reason (reliance on intuition for decidability). The human brain does a fairly good job of constantly solving for both predator (opportunity), and prey (risk) and our emotions evolved to describe the difference. There is no reason that we cannot produce algorithms that do the same, using property(title) as a limit on action. May 17, 2018 3:29pm
-
—“Curt, on Ireland’s Referendum. Your Position on Abortion?”—
Well, you know, I would have said something very different before I worked on natural law, because my intuitions are pretty libertarian. But now that I have, I’m against abortion, pro birth control, pro enforced birth control, and pro sterilization. And I would rather see punishment of girls who get pregnant, and the boys that get them pregnant, than tolerate abortions – even if the data says that unwanted children produce extraordinarily bad externalities. Altruistic punishment of those who fail to suppress their impulses a good thing. Fear of failure to suppress your impulses is a good thing. Having been there myself I understand. I also understand that the option only subsidizes the problem And even though I hate the idea myself, like capital punishment some unpleasantries are what they are. Some things are not to be trifled with, and creating life is one of them. And decidable is decidable, and it’s when we lie to ourselves and each other, that we have difficulty solving problems that are in fact, always decidable. Abortion is decidable. The decision is ‘no’.
-
—“Curt, on Ireland’s Referendum. Your Position on Abortion?”—
Well, you know, I would have said something very different before I worked on natural law, because my intuitions are pretty libertarian. But now that I have, I’m against abortion, pro birth control, pro enforced birth control, and pro sterilization. And I would rather see punishment of girls who get pregnant, and the boys that get them pregnant, than tolerate abortions – even if the data says that unwanted children produce extraordinarily bad externalities. Altruistic punishment of those who fail to suppress their impulses a good thing. Fear of failure to suppress your impulses is a good thing. Having been there myself I understand. I also understand that the option only subsidizes the problem And even though I hate the idea myself, like capital punishment some unpleasantries are what they are. Some things are not to be trifled with, and creating life is one of them. And decidable is decidable, and it’s when we lie to ourselves and each other, that we have difficulty solving problems that are in fact, always decidable. Abortion is decidable. The decision is ‘no’.