Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • (…) 3. A Methodology: i) Epistemology: “The Completion of the Scientific Metho

    (…)

    3. A Methodology:
    i) Epistemology: “The Completion of the Scientific Method and its application to the full scope of human knowledge, resulting in a universal, formal, epistemological method sufficient for adjudication of differences in court.“

    ii) Ethics, Law, Politics: “The strict, algorithmic, construction of the natural, common law, of reciprocity (tort);”

    4. A Body of Law:
    ii) Law: “A body of law answering the cannon of questions – providing a common law of equally sovereign men, alternative to Roman, Napoleonic, and Continental law of unequally sovereign men”

    iii) Constitution: A Constitution of that law, completing the Aristotelian, Roman, British, and American Constitutional Project.”

    iiii) Policies: “A set of policies under that constitution, solving the otherwise unsolvable problems of the current age.”

    5. A Reformation:
    i) Reformation: “A reformation and unification of all fields”

    – Language, Logic, and Mathematics
    – Psychology, Sociology, and Group Strategy
    – Money, Credit-Finance, and Economics
    – Ethics, Law, and Politics
    – Mindfulness-Religion, Education-Academy, and Government-Rule

    6. A Solution
    i) A Solution: “A solution to the political problem of our age.”

    ii) A Declaration: “A Declaration demanding the implementation of this constitution, as reformations of, by amendments to, the existing American constitution, restoring the historical European, Germanic, English, British, and American rights of equally sovereign men, and a means of successful insurrection to force its adoption if force is required – which it will be.”

    THE LIST OF IDEAS
    Too long to list here but the overview lists all of the major themes in order by aristotelian category.

    From there you have to link to specific articles.

    ANd then there is the courseware.

    ANd finally I will ship the book when ready.

    (…)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 02:52:05 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426209481700160

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426205598779546

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    —“He needs to state it plainly and stop comparing himself to great philosophers. I’ve read Kant, Hegel, Locke, Darwin, and a lot more. They were far more eloquent and articulate with their ideas. Even Kant, who writes with even more arrogance than this guy, but at least deserved it.”— Frank Anthony Overton Jr. Frank, Summarize any three of aristotle, hume, kant, hegel, (locke and darwin are easy). They were creating paradigm shifts. Frank says (a) he doesn’t understand it, (b) by he can opine on it. If you read those people then read the Overview and comment. Otherwise you’re just jerking off in public. Criticism is a good thing – if it’s in fact criticism. THE VIDEO SUMMARIZES “Propertarianism consists of a collection of ideas. The core insight in that collection of ideas consists in the completion of the scientific method. The remaining body of work consists of the application of the scientific method to the full scope of human disciplines.” THE WEB SITE HOME PAGE, SUMMARIZES: “Propertarianism consists of the completion of the Scientific Method; its application to the totality of human knowledge; a universally commensurable language of all thought; its embodiment in the common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons.” THE OVERVIEW SUMMARIZES An Explanation: i) The Uniqueness of Western Civilization: “The Group Strategy (Philosophy) of Western Civilization in Scientific Terms: Excellence and Heroism, Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, The Jury and Markets in Everything.” ii) The Failure of the Enlightenment: “The Crisis of the 20th and 21st Centuries as a failure to apply that strategy and adapt to counter the industrialization of pseudoscience, sophism, denial, and deceit; iii) The Second Conquest of the West: The Crisis of the 20th and 21st century as a repetition of the revolt against western civilization, truth, reason, and law, under Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the dark ages of ignorance and destruction that resulted from them.” 2. A System of Measurement, Logic, Vocabulary, and Grammar: i) System Of Measurement: ( … ) “A system of measurement – Propertarian – that provides universal commensurability in thought, display, word, and deed. (Action, Acquisitionism, Propertarian.)” ii) Vocabulary: “A set of fully commensurable cross-disciplinary definitions in operational language. iii) Grammars: “A reduction of language to the equivalent of a periodic table of the elements, and the underlying geometry of thought.” iiii) Logic: “An Operational Logic using Operational Grammar for using these definitions.” v) Value Neutral Language: “A Value Neutral Language of metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy, suitable for the construction of law, delivery of testimony, and adjudication of differences in court.” (…)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426205598779546

  • THE FLYNN EFFECT The flynn effect, as far as I know (a) has reversed, and was ca

    THE FLYNN EFFECT

    The flynn effect, as far as I know (a) has reversed, and was caused by (b) reduction of developmental harms at the bottom, (c) normalization of the scientific (general rule) framework and elimination of the specific-rule framework thru education, (d) availability of abortion in the lower classes.

    All groups raise by the same levels.
    All groups vary by rates of reproduction between classes.
    All early gains are moderated by age seventeen.
    All differences return to genetic norms in the family by adulthood.

    The primary differences between groups are
    – rates and depths of maturity vs neoteny
    – sizes of the genetic classes (rates of learning)
    – genetic agency (frontal lobe) development
    – genetic linguistic ability (verbal intelligence)

    All IQ’s worldwide peak in poor backward countries then reverse worldwide as they are currently reversing most in scandinavian countries with previously largest middle class distributions due to manorialism.

    It’s not complicated.

    Lying about it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 23:53:05 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102425505636361029

  • ( …. continued:) So given that reason and then science evolved from law, and l

    ( …. continued:)

    So given that reason and then science evolved from law, and law dependent upon testimony, and that we are seeking to produce in the science that degree of testimony we would produce in court, then I see nothing terribly novel about continuing and completing that evolutionary process. In other words, science adopted operational prose as a means of suppressing the untestifiable. And I can see no reason why we would not extend this from the sciences to the pseudosciences – especially those which are used to construct and enforce law.

    —“The reason I care at all about this metaphysics issue is because I must partially disagree with the last line in the 18MAR2018 statement. While the list Curt provides is a good start, it is just a start, just a tip, and I suspect there is a whole lot more as yet unseen and undescribed to that iceberg. “—

    Despite trying, and the efforts of tens of thousands of researchers we cannot find a single case that is inexplicable by naturalistic means. In other words, I can’t find a reason to put money on (demonstrated belief in) other than common cognitive artifacts.

    —“That course was SOM 212: Myth & Spirit – The Life of Joseph Campbell”—

    My argument is that if metaphysics refers to what exists, then what do we name the study of the imaginary and fictional. In other words, how do we disambiguate between the operational, and the non? That does not mean that we do not find solace, escape, entertainment, ideation, or wisdom in fictional worlds. it does mean that we cannot testify to them or use them in argument (truth testing, evidence, persuasion, law).

    —“I have observed many, many, demonstrations of this effect which go far beyond pop psych positive thinking, social group effect, and anything else reasonably explicable by conventional Newtonian understanding of a mechanistic universe. “—

    As far as I know we have understood this phenomenon since the late seventies as nothing more than synchronicity when subject to the same information. We cannot find a single case otherwise.

    —“Rather, an example of this metaphysical (meaning, we just do not yet know how the black box of the universe does it) effect would be my thinking about a certain extremely unusual item, which I have not seen for many years, while in a fuge state washing dishes in the evening, then the next day driving down the road find that this exact item has literally fallen out of the sky and is laying there on the center line of a deserted stretch of road right in front of me (fell off a truck, presumably).”—

    (continued….)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:44:40 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424764699895143

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424759624047899

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    —“We Sense The World Fine] with the extension that while I’d agree we sense it fine, we demonstrably do not sense it completely -at least, not via direct experience of our senses. For example, radio waves exist and contain information yet unless we have a loose filling in a tooth which happens to be tuned to the same frequency as a transmitter, we do not appreciate any information in the signal. Technology allows us to access radio waves while our unaided senses would be unaware they exist (thanks, Marconi).”— Yes, we sense only that which is actionable, since brains are extremely expensive, and the inactionable is a waste of calories. Hence why we can’t see the infrared. —“The second statement, or first if taken chronologically (18MAR2018: What Is Your Personal Philosophy As It Relates To Ethics and Metaphysics? Why?] elicits more agreement and a couple more caveats. The first is that “why” is a philosophical question rather than a scientific question,”— Incentives are just as scientific (open to description in general rules, constructed from observations (measurements).) As far as i know all human behavior is open to description by incentives and information error in our cognition. This might be because I am current on both cog sci, neurology, and comp sci. —“but my perception is that P is actually a philosophy at this point rather than a science (if it was a science then the question would asl “how” rather than “why”) so this is internally consistent.”—- I am not sure that defines the discipline of science because it produces an arbitrary distinction between our state of measurement of invariant processes (physical) with measurement of variant processes (cognitive), despite the fact that we have at present a fairly good understanding of the physical process which produce experience and cognition by physical means. Moreover, as far as I understand our present knowledge of the wave, particle and upward universe, there is no possibility for the transmission of information by other means within that state of the universe. My understanding of the discipline of science after a century of failure to articulate a via-positiva method, is that it consists of whatever due diligences are necessary such that through the use of observation, measurement, and deduction, to reduce that which is beyond our senses, perception, reason, and memory, to analogies to experience that can be tested(compared) within the limits of our sense, perception, reason, and memory, such that we can warranty that we do not engage in fiction, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, fictionalisms (sophism, pseudoscience, mysticism), fraud, or outright deceit. (continued….)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424759624047899

  • “Adult neuronal networks are composed of neurons that are born sequentially duri

    —“Adult neuronal networks are composed of neurons that are born sequentially during development and slowly mature according to genetic and environmental cues. Once established, those circuits, although plastic to some extent, cannot be dramatically altered.”—

    You are born with neurons (switch boxes (routers?)) and axons (cables) that cannot be replaced, even if dendrites and axon terminals (plugs), and synapses (wires) can grow (create), connect (update), reinforce (read), and disconnect (delete.)

    The fundamental problems of neurons are, that a neuron cell body must supply its entire mini-network of dendrites, axon, axon terminals and synapses, that and memories are structurally(physically) retained.

    We know a heart is good for 3B beats and there is not much we can do about it. I do not know the equivalent durability of a neuron but because of massive parallelization, redundancy, continuous memory reformation, and continuous abstraction of general rules, we can tolerate a great deal of decline and decay and still function at the cost of new learning, rates of recognition, and overall calculation, because calculation in the brain is a process of competition for successful prediction.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:35:40 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424729368297652

  • ARCHAIC PROSE IS FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT GRASP ITS CONTENTS, ONLY MIMIC ITS INTUITI

    ARCHAIC PROSE IS FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT GRASP ITS CONTENTS, ONLY MIMIC ITS INTUITIONS.

    If you have to argue in literary analogy it’s because you can’t argue in math, science, operations, incentives, actions and economics.

    The past is only as useful as the science we derive from it.

    Archaic prose is for those who do not grasp its contents, only mimic its intuitions.

    If you can’t disambiguate it, you don’t undrestand it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:26:21 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424692763926613

  • “CURT, WHICH DNA SERVICE SHOULD I USE?”— —“Curt; Which DNA service?”— Depe

    —“CURT, WHICH DNA SERVICE SHOULD I USE?”—

    —“Curt; Which DNA service?”—

    Depends upon what you want from the service.

    FIND LIVING RELATIVES (General)
    Ancestry is cheapest largest, easiest to understand with 10M people, testing 700k markers, and 500 regions, producing lots of information – but we detect anti-european ‘bias’ in the results. Definitely for the ‘mixed race’ demographic

    HEALTH, AND MORE PRECISE ETHNICITY (More)
    23andMe is expensive, but if you opt in it includes your health information. 7M people, 1000 regions. Definitely for better ancestral ethnicity and health. Some anti-european bias to appeal to the “what am I?” market.

    PATERNITY, ORGAN DONOR TESTING (really) (lots more)
    Family Tree DNA … Paternity Testing and other specific tests (really, these guys test everything) every additional test costs but then .. when you wanna know… you can know.

    Notes:
    a) Ancestry and 23andMe both require ‘interpretation’ of results by ‘human judgement’
    b) You are best served by getting both tests and comparing them.
    c) Anything below double digit percentage is ‘noise’ that means nothing more than ‘at one point shared a common ancestor’.
    d) You are largely the product of last six generations … after that it’s very difficult to tell much of anything meaningful because whatever remains is ‘artifact’. that artifact might be from eight generations ago… or hundreds of generations ago.
    e) for example, southeast asian most often means native south american with god knows who, and finally the fragment ended up in you.
    f) so if you don’t know human migration patterns you can incorrectly interpret the ‘artifacts’.
    g) or that you have no such artifact, only share earlier markers in common with people from a region due to even earlier migrations.
    (Ancestry.com tries to muddy the waters on purpose)

    In other words, view any origin below 20% with extreme skepticism. 😉

    Good 2019 review here:
    exploringlifesmysteries.com/best-dna-test/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:12:50 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424639582302125

  • MISLEADING DNA RESULTS – ALWAYS by Eric Best I’ve had to explain to people so ma

    MISLEADING DNA RESULTS – ALWAYS
    by Eric Best

    I’ve had to explain to people so many times about 23andme’s misleading results. They intentionally display results based on a default level of statistical probability that is pretty damn low, and they do this for the obvious reason that these results look more interesting and specific, but most of it is meaningless.

    The results also change over time as the service’s sample size increases. What I have seen in my own results is that as the sample size has grown, my larger heritage percentages have just grown even more and any of the marginal (and more “exotic” ones) ones that used to show up even with higher levels of statistical probability have disappeared altogether.

    ——

    (CD: Which is precisely what we would expect)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:11:49 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424635553283768

  • CRITICISM OF MY INTERPRETATION OF POPULATION GENETICS I got another supposed cri

    CRITICISM OF MY INTERPRETATION OF POPULATION GENETICS

    I got another supposed criticism last night without explaining what, from fans of population genetics. However, I can’t separate out their bias from anyone else’s. I have three people I can ask, but they have stopped participating, apparently because I won’t conform to their bias. That bias is to limit discussion to pop gen, and not further disambiguate by language, and further disambiguate by group competitive (evolutionary) strategy.

    In other words, I’m solving for the big questions of
    (a) where did technological competitiveness, paternalism, heroism and maneuver, truth and duty, sovereignty, reciprocity(property), commons, tort and jury, come from, (b) why, (c) how was it purified(west) or polluted (semitism), hinduism, buddhism.

    I use the same research everyone else does. I just am solving for ‘the western group evolutionary strategy that produced sovereignty, law, reason, logic, empiricism, science, technology.

    So I am interested in the civilizations, their technology, means of production, cooperation, and organization, and fighting.

    Those groups that we think of as caucasian (really: west eurasian) are spread along the lower boundary of the ice from Spain to Mongolia (or even further?) (So does Caucasian mean west eurasian? the people of the caucuses today? the people that spread into the levant? the people north and west of the black sea? I try to avoid the term because it’s useless.)

    The black sea is fresh water at that point and seems to be where the rapid evolution of west eurasians peaks, beaks into the IE expansion, and that in to north and west (european), south west (old european), from old european to Anatolian. And from caucuses east to the Tocharian, and south to the coastal middle east, and southeast into the Iranic peoples, then further east into the old indus river peoples (india).

    Where did truth come from and why did we do it, and why didn’t anyone else? A coincidence: tech, animals, territory, economics, strategy (ooda-loop/maneuver), entrepreneurialism, law, debate, argument, reason, contract.

    (continued…)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:09:46 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424627484718540

  • Color Me Frustrated: Despite his efforts, Eric [Weinstein] makes the common mist

    Color Me Frustrated: Despite his efforts, Eric [Weinstein] makes the common mistake of trying to explain the invisible by conflating the measurement as existential with what is being measured as existential. There are no ‘spinners’ there are (exist) some combination of forces that produce the spinning effect, and we just don’t know what they are. And because we cannot (yet?) measure at such scales we must explain observations in measurements – but “the description is not the thing, it’s a description of the consequences of the thing”. THERE IS NOTHING COMPLICATED about quantum physics, or any other kind of physics, or any other science, other than the problem of providing a model – an analogy to experience – that explains what it is that we are measuring in operational terms rather than the literary analogy we call mathematics. (Einstein gave us the elastic surface model of gravity for example.) Eric calls this visualizing – reducing to an analogy to experience. Measurements(individual terms) are more complicated than the models (aggregates), just as the mathematical description of of a whirlpool or tornado is more complicated than the visual observation. Unfortunately, we don’t know the model of reality in analogy to physical experience – not material as in mass, but material as in existential. Moreover: The 248/8 (Lisi) symmetry (“self referentiality”) means nothing more than such a system, of that many forces, in that many dimensions, can maintain equilibrium without appeal to external forces – and this suggests a possibility of completeness meaning nothing is left to discover. (We have no idea if he’s right really. Only that this is an example of the category of candidate solutions we might investigate.) Every bit of evidence we have finds the same forces, which we reduced to analogy to experience using the model of electromagnetism, fluids, fluids of different densities, and describe with vectors, graphs, networks, manifolds of forces. So far we divide the universe into forces, particles, atoms, molecules, biological, life, sentience (cognition), speech and calculation(grammars of disambiguation comparison and transaction) in all its forms. And there is little evidence or demand for any grammar (system of relations) smaller than those fundamental forces. The question is largely whether those fundamental forces exist in space, which we would need to define, or whether they produce space, and as such need no further definition.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 19:56:12 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424574141005157

  • ” Most causal SNPs that are regulatory SNPs that do not encode for proteins dire

    —” Most causal SNPs that are regulatory SNPs that do not encode for proteins directly. Instead, the causal SNPs change how encoding proteins operate. “—

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 02:00:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149136427885744128