Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550461054 Timestamp) THE SCIENCE OF RELIGIOSITY IN THREE POINTS Negative correlation between intelligence and religion. Greater negative correlation for dogma than behavior. In other words people demonstrate ethical behavior under the advice of the religion’s wisdom literature but ignore the dogma.

    1. First, intelligent people are less likely to (need to) conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma.

    2. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs.

    3. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

    In other words, we cannot NOT have some sort of intuitionistic training of some form. Women are biased toward greater demand for mindfulness out of genetics. The lower classes are biased toward greater demand for mindfulness out of ability. “RELIGION” SOLVES THE NEURAL ECONOMY PROBLEM BY SOLVING THE MINDFULNESS PROBLEM.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550463973 Timestamp) WHICH KIND OF CHRISTIAN ARE YOU So the question is: 1 – Are you a scientific christian (science) 2 – Are you a normative christian (habit) 3 – Are you a philosophical christian (choice) 4 – Are you a supernatural christian (faith). I am a scientific christian.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550437292 Timestamp) TALKING TO THE GODS THAT EXIST I talk to my god every day. Fairly often. The difference is that i have a scientific understanding of this god as a sort of low level ‘software’ I consult, and response as intuition or feeling rather than high level software like speech. This knowledge poses no problem for me. It is simply true. And it works. We all share similar versions of this software in every faith that depends upon fictional characters. This software does its job. For some reason the fact that this software is in our physical brains rather than in some imaginary alternate plane or universe seems to be difficult for others. And they would rather believe in magic men with superpowers, than a bit of low level software that we all run at all times and consciously and unconsciously update with new tweaks from one another. I mean… this is how gods, heroes, the dead, actually exist – as information. And once you understand that the universe consist entirely of what we have no better word for than ‘information’, this makes a lot more sense. Over time my ‘god’ has ‘revealed himself’ (meaning transformed into) something between An ancient oak grove, the bodies of my ancestors, Odin, Aristotle, and Aurelius. Because it shares those … similarities. He is a god of my experience and making. And he rarely if ever fails me. So I talk to him all the time whenever I think “what should I do?” about anything meaningful. Then I write down what I think after that and I’m done. Because writing words – making them real – tames the intuition (subconsious).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550461054 Timestamp) THE SCIENCE OF RELIGIOSITY IN THREE POINTS Negative correlation between intelligence and religion. Greater negative correlation for dogma than behavior. In other words people demonstrate ethical behavior under the advice of the religion’s wisdom literature but ignore the dogma.

    1. First, intelligent people are less likely to (need to) conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma.

    2. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs.

    3. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

    In other words, we cannot NOT have some sort of intuitionistic training of some form. Women are biased toward greater demand for mindfulness out of genetics. The lower classes are biased toward greater demand for mindfulness out of ability. “RELIGION” SOLVES THE NEURAL ECONOMY PROBLEM BY SOLVING THE MINDFULNESS PROBLEM.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550437292 Timestamp) TALKING TO THE GODS THAT EXIST I talk to my god every day. Fairly often. The difference is that i have a scientific understanding of this god as a sort of low level ‘software’ I consult, and response as intuition or feeling rather than high level software like speech. This knowledge poses no problem for me. It is simply true. And it works. We all share similar versions of this software in every faith that depends upon fictional characters. This software does its job. For some reason the fact that this software is in our physical brains rather than in some imaginary alternate plane or universe seems to be difficult for others. And they would rather believe in magic men with superpowers, than a bit of low level software that we all run at all times and consciously and unconsciously update with new tweaks from one another. I mean… this is how gods, heroes, the dead, actually exist – as information. And once you understand that the universe consist entirely of what we have no better word for than ‘information’, this makes a lot more sense. Over time my ‘god’ has ‘revealed himself’ (meaning transformed into) something between An ancient oak grove, the bodies of my ancestors, Odin, Aristotle, and Aurelius. Because it shares those … similarities. He is a god of my experience and making. And he rarely if ever fails me. So I talk to him all the time whenever I think “what should I do?” about anything meaningful. Then I write down what I think after that and I’m done. Because writing words – making them real – tames the intuition (subconsious).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550764294 Timestamp) WHY NOT DEBATE THE FAITHFUL? (1 – I don’t debate ‘the faithful’ because reason, empiricism, operationalism, science and law are incommensurable with faith. Moreover, I debate in writing because abrahamic sophism and GSRM is easier to expose, and analytic prose more than the faithful can follow by intuition.) (2- So just as ‘Do not debate with women, they argue by intuition, and proportionality while men argue by testimony and reciprocity’ the faithful rely on the tactic of females: outcasting those who will not conform to myth, vs men outcasting those who will not conform to Truth.) ( 3 -The only reason the faithful have political value is remaining numbers. So rejection of cooperation in exchange for tolerance of circumventing testimony is still possible.Otherwise not.The faithful are historically allies of the enemy, and only joined the ‘right’ after ww2.) (4-This is because the tools of rallying to a false promise, despite the moral hazard of doing so, and using GSRM, Pilpul and Critique (which my work exists to end), are the tool of communicating the abrahamic religions of the old world, and Marxism, Postmodern, Feminism today.) ( 5- So the problem for the faithful is that the tools of persuasion by which they construct their internal contact for faith, is used against them, by a COMPETING new religion of pseudoscience evolved to REPLACE THEM.) ( 6 – Since we have spent 1500 years germanicizing this semitic religion, it is defended by the aristocratic(law) class on tradition and kinship interest alone. However, the faithful will prevent the martial class from defeating this new pseudoscientific set of religions.) (7-And while I have found a method of using the law and testimony to end these competitors our ‘traditional’ faithful,those faithful are clearly unwilling to trade “Faith for the Spiritual, and Law for Reality” in matters of public speech -which is necessary to end competition. ) (8 – As such the only possibility going forward is mass appeal to the material interests of the majority of the population, whom under pressure of subjugation and genocide by the new pseudoscientific cults, will follow their material interest. ) (9 -This means we simply write the law without compromise and let the interests of faith compete with everyone’s material interests; and as such we cannot restore education and state support to the churches, which they desperately need for their survival and political influence. (10- And you .. amatures .. interpreted my experiment (survey) as an attack on the faith, rather than a test of whether it is possible for the faithful to tolerate such a constitution when my objective was to determine if it was possible to return the church to its central role.) (11 – Because my first draft restored the church to central functions of education, and cut public schools, post offices, title registries, banking and credit, and returned those functions to the church. thus ensuring its survival, and the starvation of competing cults.) (12 – But this solution requires that the spectrum of ‘churches’ serve the interests of our people from devoted to disinterested to (as I do) those who prefer our native rather than alien religions of community, ancestors and nature.) (13 – But there is no reasoning with faith. Faith is designed to resist reason. And the calibre of people to discourse with on the ‘alternative right’ is not exactly that which assists in anything other than surveying the range of positions of those lacking agency.) (14 – Hence in any discourse with ‘the faithful’ one is forced to state the truth, that one cannot debate with those who practice the methods of argument evolved precisely to deny means motive and opportunity to reason. And ergo one must resort to ‘calling out’ abrahamic sophism. (15- Which is true, but useless with the faithful who deny reality and the tools by which we warranty our speech is consistent, corespondent and coherent with actionable reality: reason, empiricism, operationalism and science. – Cheers.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550764294 Timestamp) WHY NOT DEBATE THE FAITHFUL? (1 – I don’t debate ‘the faithful’ because reason, empiricism, operationalism, science and law are incommensurable with faith. Moreover, I debate in writing because abrahamic sophism and GSRM is easier to expose, and analytic prose more than the faithful can follow by intuition.) (2- So just as ‘Do not debate with women, they argue by intuition, and proportionality while men argue by testimony and reciprocity’ the faithful rely on the tactic of females: outcasting those who will not conform to myth, vs men outcasting those who will not conform to Truth.) ( 3 -The only reason the faithful have political value is remaining numbers. So rejection of cooperation in exchange for tolerance of circumventing testimony is still possible.Otherwise not.The faithful are historically allies of the enemy, and only joined the ‘right’ after ww2.) (4-This is because the tools of rallying to a false promise, despite the moral hazard of doing so, and using GSRM, Pilpul and Critique (which my work exists to end), are the tool of communicating the abrahamic religions of the old world, and Marxism, Postmodern, Feminism today.) ( 5- So the problem for the faithful is that the tools of persuasion by which they construct their internal contact for faith, is used against them, by a COMPETING new religion of pseudoscience evolved to REPLACE THEM.) ( 6 – Since we have spent 1500 years germanicizing this semitic religion, it is defended by the aristocratic(law) class on tradition and kinship interest alone. However, the faithful will prevent the martial class from defeating this new pseudoscientific set of religions.) (7-And while I have found a method of using the law and testimony to end these competitors our ‘traditional’ faithful,those faithful are clearly unwilling to trade “Faith for the Spiritual, and Law for Reality” in matters of public speech -which is necessary to end competition. ) (8 – As such the only possibility going forward is mass appeal to the material interests of the majority of the population, whom under pressure of subjugation and genocide by the new pseudoscientific cults, will follow their material interest. ) (9 -This means we simply write the law without compromise and let the interests of faith compete with everyone’s material interests; and as such we cannot restore education and state support to the churches, which they desperately need for their survival and political influence. (10- And you .. amatures .. interpreted my experiment (survey) as an attack on the faith, rather than a test of whether it is possible for the faithful to tolerate such a constitution when my objective was to determine if it was possible to return the church to its central role.) (11 – Because my first draft restored the church to central functions of education, and cut public schools, post offices, title registries, banking and credit, and returned those functions to the church. thus ensuring its survival, and the starvation of competing cults.) (12 – But this solution requires that the spectrum of ‘churches’ serve the interests of our people from devoted to disinterested to (as I do) those who prefer our native rather than alien religions of community, ancestors and nature.) (13 – But there is no reasoning with faith. Faith is designed to resist reason. And the calibre of people to discourse with on the ‘alternative right’ is not exactly that which assists in anything other than surveying the range of positions of those lacking agency.) (14 – Hence in any discourse with ‘the faithful’ one is forced to state the truth, that one cannot debate with those who practice the methods of argument evolved precisely to deny means motive and opportunity to reason. And ergo one must resort to ‘calling out’ abrahamic sophism. (15- Which is true, but useless with the faithful who deny reality and the tools by which we warranty our speech is consistent, corespondent and coherent with actionable reality: reason, empiricism, operationalism and science. – Cheers.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550851396 Timestamp) OUTSTANDING ISSUE So far the only outstanding argument is whether metaphysics exist in the plural(languages) or singular (physics), and hopefully I will get to that one in the next week or so. But in general, you’re going to be wrong on ANY criticism of P. You’re going to be wrong on possibility of successful revolution under P. You are probably wrong on the desirability of the policies I’ve recommended under P. You might not be wrong on whether I am pitching the best government under P. You are most likely right that the demographics are such that we need ideology and religion in addition to law. I did my job. But please stop wasting my time. I mean all you (the idiots) are doing is proving my point that public speech should be limited to that under which due diligence has been performed. Because you’re no different than the enemy and their lies. Because you use the same technique as the enemy and their lies. Undermine western civilization because you are addicted to lies.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550841555 Timestamp) —“Curt, I don’t hold an objective view of empiricism as, in my understanding the facts are temporary until the community gains further knowledge, which is a long way of saying subjective by my ken. Who do I need to read to understand the objective viewpoint? Am I even wrong in my understanding?”—- Jarrod Marma I cannot quite be sure I’m answering you correctly, but if your statement means that:

    • All premises are forever contingent;
    • that all theories serve to search for opportunity fields;
    • that the application of the theory to transformative action – tests the precision of the opportunity field, and the search;
    • and that survival of that application of actions increases the persuasive power of the theory (search and field),
    • Cheers

    Then yes. But they that’s just the scientific method right? This is the 20th century’s lesson: “Mathiness is a proofy thing and contingency is a truthy thing, and never the two shall meet.” Which has been the curse of mathiness since the greeks. Empiricism doesn’t PROVE anything it ELIMINATES ERROR by compensating for limitations in our perception and cognition. The question is,how do we do we apply those rules to speech ABOUT those theories? And then we need a system of measurement to test it. That system is P’s testimonialism. And when you say “Objective” I assume you mean ‘Operational’ and so yes you will need the “Point of View” in Operational grammar. What I suspect (from my observations of your argument) is that you already praxeologically (operationally) walk through any given model. As such I suspect that you do not need the ‘training’ that Operational speech provides. Op speech is just a completion of praxeology.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550851396 Timestamp) OUTSTANDING ISSUE So far the only outstanding argument is whether metaphysics exist in the plural(languages) or singular (physics), and hopefully I will get to that one in the next week or so. But in general, you’re going to be wrong on ANY criticism of P. You’re going to be wrong on possibility of successful revolution under P. You are probably wrong on the desirability of the policies I’ve recommended under P. You might not be wrong on whether I am pitching the best government under P. You are most likely right that the demographics are such that we need ideology and religion in addition to law. I did my job. But please stop wasting my time. I mean all you (the idiots) are doing is proving my point that public speech should be limited to that under which due diligence has been performed. Because you’re no different than the enemy and their lies. Because you use the same technique as the enemy and their lies. Undermine western civilization because you are addicted to lies.