Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Freud vs Jung vs Cognitive Science

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:45 AM by Tim Abbott

    —“Tim Abbott : What’s your position on Freud vs Jung, vs Cog Sci?”—CD

    Freud’s main concepts of the mind were non-original, but innovations of prior Greek concepts. The state of human affairs from the Freudian vision are outright lies. I find more utility in Jung. Jungian concepts of an evolving mind and a shared reality that constantly revealing itself via symbols. Cognitive science is a focus on the material world and being able to overcome emotional defects of the mind in order to think in a more rational way once again. I believe in the duality of nature. Materialism and symbolism, and through symbolism the material world can be manipulated. It’s a work in progress. 😐 === (CD: Tim is our go-to guy for psychology)

  • Re: Tekwars Clown Word on “Science”

    Mar 28, 2020, 1:46 PM (more nitwit kantians) SCIENCE Science is just the application of law to the market for knowledge. Norms for the limit of normative behavior. Law for the limit of criminal behavior. Tradition for the intergenerational transfer of science, norms, and laws. KNOWING A paradigm of related ideas that permit one to comprehend possibilities, think, and act upon them. Knowing, the utility of that knowledge, the utility of that knowledge across increasing numbers, and the truth or falsehood of that knowledge are four different things: 1-Personal Utility, 2-Cooperative Scope of Utility between people, 3-Utility in Resolving Conflicts Between Paradigms, and 4-Limiting others from spreading harmful ways of knowing. Young men are concerned with the first two, because you have no meaningful responsibilities. Those of us with responsibilities for groups of people care about all four. This is no different from the moral bias of the left specializing in just care and proportionality, while conservatives hold a consistent across the spectrum including reciprocity, loyalty ,and purity. DEMAND FOR METHODS OF KNOWING Yes, we need a series of paradigms across the spectrum from the intuitive to rational to the calculative in order to satisfy the demands for decidability suitable for satisfying the demand for infallibility across the spectrum of abilities of different human beings of different genetics, ages, experiences, and training. That does not mean that the most precise system of measurement (paradigm) will not continuously provide higher resolution and greater falsification over the more intuitive. It will. It is better to say that it is useful for the best of us to learn the empathic (child), rational(young adult), and scientific (mature adult) languages. THE FUNCTION OF SCIENCE IN THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES OVER UTILITY OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE PROHIBITION OF FALSE AND HARMFUL KNOWLEDGE 1. Yes, we can and do use almost any paradigm or paradigms to imagine possibilities. 2. The means by which we come to an idea (hypothesis) has no bearing on the possibility, good or bad, truth or falsehood of it. 3. The premises that such an idea must depend upon limit the deductions, inductions, abductions, and free associations that one develops from it. 4. It’s that all arguments in all frames CAN be made commensurable by the same system of measurement. 5. That system of measurement consists of what which we can testify to. 6. Science is the discipline in which we test whether these are testifiable and as such whether they are false. 7. There is no more parsimonious commensurable internally consistent externally correspondent and complete paradigm by which to test all human thought. 8. It is this competition for coherence consistency correspondence and completeness that provides the test of whether propositions are comprehensible, undecidable, testifiable, a truth candidate, or false 9. This market has and continues to continuously reorganize the paradigm we call science and the sciences. There is no other method of testifying about reality than science. 10. That is the premise of science: testimony. Not the means of obtaining knowledge. The means of falsifying knowledge across contexts. AFTER GREAT INNOVATIONS IN PARADIGMS, THERE IS GREATER VALUE IN ELIMINATING ERROR THAN IDENTIFYING NEW TRUTHS This is the period we are in now. We are continuing to falsify the anti-Darwinan revolution by Marx, Freud, Boas, Derrida, Friedan, etc. SCIENCE CANT END, BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE CANT END, SO PARADIGMS CANT END 1. Even if we discover the fundamental rules of the universe across the spectrum – even to thoughts, we can develop potentially infinite combinations of paradigms upon them. In other words the utility of science will shift from discovery of fundamental laws to the greater application of those laws. 2. The spectrum of the most parsimonious paradigm shifts as opportunities for action shift. 3. The set of narratives across the spectrum of abilities will gradually adapt to the seizure of those opportunities. 4. We will always have empathic narratives, rational rules, and methods of calculation to satisfy the demands of people with lesser and greater ability, lesser and greater agency, and lesser and greater responsibility. KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITED BY AGENCY At some point we cannot easily learn more without acting. At present we cannot afford to run tests in physics and medicine. And agency is limited by organization of energy. MATHEMATICS Mathematics (the logic of a positional names) is the simplest possible language (paradigm, logic, grammar, vocabulary, syntax) of constant relations. It has only one relation: position. Because it has only one possible constant relation, it is far less subject to error than all other languages.

  • Re: Tekwars Clown Word on “Science”

    Mar 28, 2020, 1:46 PM (more nitwit kantians) SCIENCE Science is just the application of law to the market for knowledge. Norms for the limit of normative behavior. Law for the limit of criminal behavior. Tradition for the intergenerational transfer of science, norms, and laws. KNOWING A paradigm of related ideas that permit one to comprehend possibilities, think, and act upon them. Knowing, the utility of that knowledge, the utility of that knowledge across increasing numbers, and the truth or falsehood of that knowledge are four different things: 1-Personal Utility, 2-Cooperative Scope of Utility between people, 3-Utility in Resolving Conflicts Between Paradigms, and 4-Limiting others from spreading harmful ways of knowing. Young men are concerned with the first two, because you have no meaningful responsibilities. Those of us with responsibilities for groups of people care about all four. This is no different from the moral bias of the left specializing in just care and proportionality, while conservatives hold a consistent across the spectrum including reciprocity, loyalty ,and purity. DEMAND FOR METHODS OF KNOWING Yes, we need a series of paradigms across the spectrum from the intuitive to rational to the calculative in order to satisfy the demands for decidability suitable for satisfying the demand for infallibility across the spectrum of abilities of different human beings of different genetics, ages, experiences, and training. That does not mean that the most precise system of measurement (paradigm) will not continuously provide higher resolution and greater falsification over the more intuitive. It will. It is better to say that it is useful for the best of us to learn the empathic (child), rational(young adult), and scientific (mature adult) languages. THE FUNCTION OF SCIENCE IN THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES OVER UTILITY OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE PROHIBITION OF FALSE AND HARMFUL KNOWLEDGE 1. Yes, we can and do use almost any paradigm or paradigms to imagine possibilities. 2. The means by which we come to an idea (hypothesis) has no bearing on the possibility, good or bad, truth or falsehood of it. 3. The premises that such an idea must depend upon limit the deductions, inductions, abductions, and free associations that one develops from it. 4. It’s that all arguments in all frames CAN be made commensurable by the same system of measurement. 5. That system of measurement consists of what which we can testify to. 6. Science is the discipline in which we test whether these are testifiable and as such whether they are false. 7. There is no more parsimonious commensurable internally consistent externally correspondent and complete paradigm by which to test all human thought. 8. It is this competition for coherence consistency correspondence and completeness that provides the test of whether propositions are comprehensible, undecidable, testifiable, a truth candidate, or false 9. This market has and continues to continuously reorganize the paradigm we call science and the sciences. There is no other method of testifying about reality than science. 10. That is the premise of science: testimony. Not the means of obtaining knowledge. The means of falsifying knowledge across contexts. AFTER GREAT INNOVATIONS IN PARADIGMS, THERE IS GREATER VALUE IN ELIMINATING ERROR THAN IDENTIFYING NEW TRUTHS This is the period we are in now. We are continuing to falsify the anti-Darwinan revolution by Marx, Freud, Boas, Derrida, Friedan, etc. SCIENCE CANT END, BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE CANT END, SO PARADIGMS CANT END 1. Even if we discover the fundamental rules of the universe across the spectrum – even to thoughts, we can develop potentially infinite combinations of paradigms upon them. In other words the utility of science will shift from discovery of fundamental laws to the greater application of those laws. 2. The spectrum of the most parsimonious paradigm shifts as opportunities for action shift. 3. The set of narratives across the spectrum of abilities will gradually adapt to the seizure of those opportunities. 4. We will always have empathic narratives, rational rules, and methods of calculation to satisfy the demands of people with lesser and greater ability, lesser and greater agency, and lesser and greater responsibility. KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITED BY AGENCY At some point we cannot easily learn more without acting. At present we cannot afford to run tests in physics and medicine. And agency is limited by organization of energy. MATHEMATICS Mathematics (the logic of a positional names) is the simplest possible language (paradigm, logic, grammar, vocabulary, syntax) of constant relations. It has only one relation: position. Because it has only one possible constant relation, it is far less subject to error than all other languages.

  • No, the Law Like Any Science, Continuously Evolves

    RE: Curt Doolittle’s recipe for civilization – JF Gariépy TPS #714 youtube.com I didn’t say there is an end to history or to law. I wasn’t searching for an idea. I’m claiming that european ancestral law is the reason for the unique success of western civlization. And that continuing the anglo tradition, we must periodically update our constitution and law to reflect innovations in irreciprocity. I am merely adapting the current constitution and law to the present to suppress new known harms, the same way we update all sciences. There is no end to innovation – either in knowledge, good, or irreciprocity(harm). Law is just another science. The difference is that institutions change with greater difficulty than does un-institutionalized knowledge. 😉 JFG – Love you man but you have a habit of declaring understanding when you are hypothesizing understanding, and cannot warranty your words. 😉 Of course, in P-Law, you would have to change your behavior, and say your understanding was such, but that you can’t warranty it as true. 😉 Otherwise you’d be liable for ten times the air time to correct your prior claims. 😉 And yes, I know you run an opinion show. JFG opinion is entertaining. 😉

  • No, the Law Like Any Science, Continuously Evolves

    RE: Curt Doolittle’s recipe for civilization – JF Gariépy TPS #714 youtube.com I didn’t say there is an end to history or to law. I wasn’t searching for an idea. I’m claiming that european ancestral law is the reason for the unique success of western civlization. And that continuing the anglo tradition, we must periodically update our constitution and law to reflect innovations in irreciprocity. I am merely adapting the current constitution and law to the present to suppress new known harms, the same way we update all sciences. There is no end to innovation – either in knowledge, good, or irreciprocity(harm). Law is just another science. The difference is that institutions change with greater difficulty than does un-institutionalized knowledge. 😉 JFG – Love you man but you have a habit of declaring understanding when you are hypothesizing understanding, and cannot warranty your words. 😉 Of course, in P-Law, you would have to change your behavior, and say your understanding was such, but that you can’t warranty it as true. 😉 Otherwise you’d be liable for ten times the air time to correct your prior claims. 😉 And yes, I know you run an opinion show. JFG opinion is entertaining. 😉

  • No. I’m a scientist and you’re an experiment and all you did is provide another

    No. I’m a scientist and you’re an experiment and all you did is provide another data point confirming the obvious.

    We must separate and go our separate ways. We cannot let you take the rest of us down with you into another dark age of false promise, pseudoscience, and denial.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-23 20:42:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264295710868070402

    Reply addressees: @hugo909 @TheRealFMCH @Maroeladalx10DB @laurenboebert @austere1717

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264295286421282816

  • Flattening the curve saves the medical system from overloading. It means margina

    Flattening the curve saves the medical system from overloading. It means marginal cases might not die due to equipment shortages. It doesn’t mean that the frail and elderly won’t die soon. Nor does it mean the coming pain from shutting down the world won’t be a greater suffering.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-23 11:40:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264159237267226625

    Reply addressees: @Quillette

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264157376980148225

  • Summary of JFG/Doolittle on The Molyneux Debate

    Apr 1, 2020, 2:57 PM SUMMARY OF JFG/DOOLITTLE ON THE MOLYNEUX DEBATE That was fun. I always enjoy JF. The public isn’t used to seeing how philosophy, law, science and math are done between practitioners – tediously precisely. I realize this kind of thing is difficult for the audience. And JF has to keep the audience engaged. Between my long expositions and jf’s audience representation it required a little cat herding on my part. That said, I think we got there. SUMMARY: (a) we are born with a distribution of moral preferences (Demand for treatment from others, and resistance to demands from other)s, (b) we exercise our moral preferences in a market competition for cooperation wherein we discover cooperation (sexual, social, economic, political, military) with people that satisfy our moral preferences, (c) groups of people increase in a division of labor and as they do so converge on moral norms (requirements for cooperation) that allow them to cooperatively succeed in their geographic, demographic, economic, institutional, and military conditions – and some of these they institute as laws (punishments for violations) (d) across human groups we converge on the same underlying rule within each of those different markets (e) that rule is reciprocity that preserves cooperation and prevents retaliation, within the limits of proportionality that cause members to defect. (e) but moral rules are only useful in creating and preserving cooperation and the outsized returns on cooperation, (f) and cooperation must be more beneficial than parasitism(free riding, black markets, rent seeking, corruption etc), and predation (conquest). (g) all human organizations of all kinds seek the minimum morality, maximum free riding, rent seeking, and corruption until there is insufficient free capital to incentivize adjustment to shocks, and the civilization collapses (h) so there is no moral rule outside of the utility of cooperation because ‘moral’ can only mean ‘within the limits of reciprocity and proportionality among those of us cooperating’. There is no morality in war. (i) the only universal moral rule is reciprocity – do not impose costs, including risks, directly or indirectly upon the demonstrated interests of others in your group. (j) there are no possible via positiva universal moral statements. Anything that is not immoral (reciprocal) is moral. People who claim otherwise are engaging in an act of fraud by claiming their preference must be paid for by others irreciprocally. They claim debts or injustice when there is none. CLOSING As such, JF was correct at the personal level in that all individuals demonstrate variation in moral demand of others;; And SM was half right at the socio-political level, and half right at the universal level, but stated the via positiva preference for a good instead of via negativa prohibition on the bad. In this sense both parties, adopting ideal types, rather than the use of series, talked past each other. P-law makes use of disambiguation through “operationalism, competition, and serialization’, and relies on the logic of incentives, supply and demand. We convert psychological , social, legal and political concepts into economic terms to take advantage of the minimization of error that results, at the expense of more reasoning and less intuiting. -Cheers LEARN SOMETHING: DOOLITTLE on the JFG/MOLYNEUX Debate

    Curt Doolittle on The Molyneux Debate | TPS #714
    from 0:00 to 1:12:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GRzHdA3lio& ( Stefan Molyneux ) NOTES PRIOR TO SHOW: WHY IS CURT DOOLITTLE SO HOSTILE IN REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM INTO SOVEREIGNTARIANISM? https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle.personal/posts/242127430518751 NOTES FOR GOING ON JFG’S SHOW https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle.personal/posts/241938667204294 (against gariepy) 1 – STEFAN MOLYNEUX AND AND J F GARIEPY DEBATE WAS FKING EMBARASSING https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=594803234449904&id=100017606988153 2 – JFG CLEARLY DOESN’T UNDERSTAND SUPERPOSITION https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=594829684447259&id=100017606988153 (against molyneux) 3 – MORE MOLYNEUX VS JFG AND A SHORT CRITICISM OF UPB https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=594894601107434&id=100017606988153 (against libertarian and right in general) 4 – THE REST OF THE RIGHT IS INTELLECTUALLY EMBARASSING https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=594817174448510&id=100017606988153

  • Summary of JFG/Doolittle on The Molyneux Debate

    Apr 1, 2020, 2:57 PM SUMMARY OF JFG/DOOLITTLE ON THE MOLYNEUX DEBATE That was fun. I always enjoy JF. The public isn’t used to seeing how philosophy, law, science and math are done between practitioners – tediously precisely. I realize this kind of thing is difficult for the audience. And JF has to keep the audience engaged. Between my long expositions and jf’s audience representation it required a little cat herding on my part. That said, I think we got there. SUMMARY: (a) we are born with a distribution of moral preferences (Demand for treatment from others, and resistance to demands from other)s, (b) we exercise our moral preferences in a market competition for cooperation wherein we discover cooperation (sexual, social, economic, political, military) with people that satisfy our moral preferences, (c) groups of people increase in a division of labor and as they do so converge on moral norms (requirements for cooperation) that allow them to cooperatively succeed in their geographic, demographic, economic, institutional, and military conditions – and some of these they institute as laws (punishments for violations) (d) across human groups we converge on the same underlying rule within each of those different markets (e) that rule is reciprocity that preserves cooperation and prevents retaliation, within the limits of proportionality that cause members to defect. (e) but moral rules are only useful in creating and preserving cooperation and the outsized returns on cooperation, (f) and cooperation must be more beneficial than parasitism(free riding, black markets, rent seeking, corruption etc), and predation (conquest). (g) all human organizations of all kinds seek the minimum morality, maximum free riding, rent seeking, and corruption until there is insufficient free capital to incentivize adjustment to shocks, and the civilization collapses (h) so there is no moral rule outside of the utility of cooperation because ‘moral’ can only mean ‘within the limits of reciprocity and proportionality among those of us cooperating’. There is no morality in war. (i) the only universal moral rule is reciprocity – do not impose costs, including risks, directly or indirectly upon the demonstrated interests of others in your group. (j) there are no possible via positiva universal moral statements. Anything that is not immoral (reciprocal) is moral. People who claim otherwise are engaging in an act of fraud by claiming their preference must be paid for by others irreciprocally. They claim debts or injustice when there is none. CLOSING As such, JF was correct at the personal level in that all individuals demonstrate variation in moral demand of others;; And SM was half right at the socio-political level, and half right at the universal level, but stated the via positiva preference for a good instead of via negativa prohibition on the bad. In this sense both parties, adopting ideal types, rather than the use of series, talked past each other. P-law makes use of disambiguation through “operationalism, competition, and serialization’, and relies on the logic of incentives, supply and demand. We convert psychological , social, legal and political concepts into economic terms to take advantage of the minimization of error that results, at the expense of more reasoning and less intuiting. -Cheers LEARN SOMETHING: DOOLITTLE on the JFG/MOLYNEUX Debate

    Curt Doolittle on The Molyneux Debate | TPS #714
    from 0:00 to 1:12:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GRzHdA3lio& ( Stefan Molyneux ) NOTES PRIOR TO SHOW: WHY IS CURT DOOLITTLE SO HOSTILE IN REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM INTO SOVEREIGNTARIANISM? https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle.personal/posts/242127430518751 NOTES FOR GOING ON JFG’S SHOW https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle.personal/posts/241938667204294 (against gariepy) 1 – STEFAN MOLYNEUX AND AND J F GARIEPY DEBATE WAS FKING EMBARASSING https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=594803234449904&id=100017606988153 2 – JFG CLEARLY DOESN’T UNDERSTAND SUPERPOSITION https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=594829684447259&id=100017606988153 (against molyneux) 3 – MORE MOLYNEUX VS JFG AND A SHORT CRITICISM OF UPB https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=594894601107434&id=100017606988153 (against libertarian and right in general) 4 – THE REST OF THE RIGHT IS INTELLECTUALLY EMBARASSING https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=594817174448510&id=100017606988153

  • Notes on Eric Weinstein’s Theory

    He demonstrates why geometry must remain the basis for mathematics, else it becomes ordinary language with all it’s faults – long standing complaint – and primary pre-war concern of mathematicians who were concerned by the restoration of mysticism in mathematics by empty verbalisms like ‘multiple infinities’ vs ‘pairing off at different rates’. This restoration of mysticism (Cantor, Bohr, and to some degree Keynes) reversed the restoration of mathematics to geometry by Descartes. He does a great job of demonstrating anchoring in any academic endeavor. And that some scientific half-solutions are sources of ignorance. And that generations of malinvested academics have to die off before their sources of ignorance can be overcome. His interjection with illustrations are a romantic cultural indulgence that distracts from his argument. He missed the point on Hilbert – that Einstein created an obstacle by half-finishing the theory and hilbert wouldn’t have. His logic is elegant, interesting, and thorough. And easier to follow than I expected. He does not make the transition from point-geometry to shape geometry. He does not make the connection between the problem of protein folding and the problem of particles producing waves. He identifies an avenue for investigation but he does not get to the point where he grasps that the reason his theory is correct but limited is that the information is insufficient to deduce from the top down or competition between formulae because we cannot measure. And so he doesn’t get to the point of working with primitives (operations) to produce wave forms (aggregates). So he doesn’t get to the point where math might be the wrong tool per se, and that simulations are necessary – by trial and error – to produce the underlying geometry. It’s not obvious that the sub-quantum (statistical) would logically operate by the same rules as chemistry and bio chemistry, molecular biology, and genetics etc – by an operational grammar. So, my suspicion is that “You can’t get there from here”. There is no means of anticipating the grammar (referent, logic, operations, transformations). All we are left with is trial and error. (My sympathies since I had to work outside the academy as well – there is no way to put a dissertation committee together for my work either.) — Curt Doolittle