Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Do You Know The Difference? Religion Vs Ideology Vs Philosophy Vs Logic Vs Mathe

    Do You Know The Difference? Religion Vs Ideology Vs Philosophy Vs Logic Vs Mathematics Vs Science

    (repost)

    – A RELIGION consists of any set of ideas of justification which require belief in, testimony to, or action according to, one or more falsehoods as a cost of inclusion and use.

    – AN IDEOLOGY consist of any set of ideas that agitate, motivate, or inspire achievement of political ends under majoritarian (monopoly) democracy. An ideology need not be internally consistent externally correspondent, or existentially possible. It need only motivate individuals to act in furtherance of policy.

    – A PHILOSOPHY consists of any set of internally consistent ideas of decidability which justify pursuit of personal preferences or group goods.

    – A LOGIC consists of any deflationary grammar of decidability that assists in the falsification by competition of one or more constant relations between states. (Note that one proves nothing logically other than internal consistency, because all premises of external correspondence are forever contingent.)

    – MATHEMATICS consists of a deflationary grammar of decidability consisting purely of competition between positional names under the preservation of ratios providing a single axis of decidability: position, but in N dimensions, providing commensurability between any set of positional relations of any number of dimensions.

    – A SCIENCE consists of any set of ideas that provide decidability independent of personal preference or group goods, by the systematic elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, by the use of measurement and record of actions – demonstrations versus words.

    – NATURAL LAW of RECIPROCITY (Tort), was produced scientifically (empirically) by trial and error, through the resolution of disputes across personal preferences, group goods, norms, traditions, and intuitions, cumulating always and everywhere that decidability is provided by property, and property consists in the demonstrated investment of human action or inaction anything whether genetic, material, behavioral, or informational.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-03 13:40:00 UTC

  • There is so much “shyte” written about Hayek that it’s impossible to defend him

    There is so much “shyte” written about Hayek that it’s impossible to defend him against the cabbages of sophism. Look, Hayek in the sensory order, in the Knowledge Problem, in the Pricing System’s solution to the Knowledge Problem, can only be understood as he finally understood it, as a question of the Law, and the LAW as the institutional means of preserving the exceptionalism of western civilization.

    We do not submit to the market, we submit to the law, and we do so because it is, as in all cases, the means by which we provide no incentive to others to fail to submit to the law. The fact that we finally had power of the purse sufficient to interfere in the economy merely required hayek to expand it.

    Fortunately for me, and unfortunately for hayek, I was born after Turing (and chomsky) and Hayek before. So Hayek’s work can be completed in a method he could sense in the Sensory Order but not develop into the Science of Law he finally understood was the NEGATIVE means by which we produce positive ends. Popper got partway there. Hayek got partway there. Turing got partway there. Chomsky took turing and added a little bit more. But it was too late to prevent the 20th century’s consumption of the accumulated capital of western civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-03 12:36:00 UTC

  • That said, I don’t care very much about pomo, or pomo in pseudoscientific Chomsk

    —That said, I don’t care very much about pomo, or pomo in pseudoscientific Chomskian drag. I only care that I don’t have to defend against sophomoric criticism. 😉”— CD

    (re: Generative Anthropology)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 11:12:00 UTC

  • RELIGION: PSYCHOLOGICAL DRUG USERS JUSTIFYING THEIR ADDICTION —-“Heidegger pos

    RELIGION: PSYCHOLOGICAL DRUG USERS JUSTIFYING THEIR ADDICTION

    —-“Heidegger posits that modern man is cut off from the sacred via the methods (scientific rationality) which you use to form the basis of your argument.”— Sean Kinney

    He is cut off from appealing, harmful, deceptions yes, when he could be otherwise provided with mindfulness by non-harmful means.

    —“The overarching externalized context or that which is beyond our understanding is the primary variable.”—

    That by which we are self manipulated, and manipulated by others, into submission or denial, rather than enabled into action, creates demand for non-harmful means of producing agency rather than sedation.

    —“There is no fundamental cohesive endpoint upon which to deduce your primary assertions: no universal self evident axioms can be identified upon which the initial premises of truth can be established.”—

    We never know the Truth (most parsimonious testimony possible) because our knowledge is incomplete. As such we only know that which is false with certainty. Between Omniscience (Truth: most parsimonious possible) and Falsehood (certainty), we merely satisfy demand for decidability necessary for making a choice. For ancestral reasons we conflate this demand for decidability sufficient for choice in the given context, with ‘truth’ proper (decidabiilty), as ‘true enough for me’ (sufficiently decidable for the context).

    —“A fundamental Nietzschean and Heideggerian premise.”–German Authors sought to preserve the german grammar developed by kant (Rationalism), as a formal expression of Rousseau’s counter-reaction against empiricism (Literary Moralism), thereby creating a more formal Rational expression of christianity in the absence of war against the aristocracy, where french had created a literary and moral war restatement of christianity as a war against the aristocracy.

    —“The beforementioned authors here point us towards the sacred and mythical characteristics of being which are antithetical to the french pomos.”–

    German authors repeatedly try to preserve a secular restatement of germanicized christianity, that is antithetical to anglo rationalism, and antithetical to french anti-aristocracy.

    —“Mathematical equations of reality based upon markets are unlikely to summon the masses to action either way.”—

    The evidence is that the population pursues self interest at all times and seeks a narrative to rally with in pursuit of it.

    —“From a Heideggerian point of view, this appeal to contextual truths simply conceal the Aesthetic wonders of Dasein and conceal the inherrent referentiality and mythos which transcend the age in which one is producing intellectual content.”—

    Use various techniques will allow us to produce some degree of mindfulness, and this includes ritual and dance, delusion, drug and alcohol use, hallucinogens, and other forms of physical and mental abuse, such as body, and sexual identity illusions. Individuals who succeed in habituating demand for the delusion demonstrate an addiction response and are undesirable We can change behavior dramatically by changing psychochemistry, both by ritualistic and supplemental means. A docile, sedated population lacking agency is preferable in many cases to a population that competes by greater agency than others. The problem being that demographic distribution and wealth limit the choices of means of providing such sedation vs agency.

    —(Being cannot be enclosed in a conceptual structure). This is Heidegger: Be that as it may: I assume based upon his later writings that he would appeal to ancestral veneration (blood and soil) as the primary source of inspiration for the masses. Reducing such concepts to the playthings of children or products of the occult however would seem to be destructive from this perspective. )—-

    Drug users report the same effects, Religious zealots, those who practice meditation, even the ‘high’ runners experience can produce it. However we can also produce it through self authoring (cognitive behavioral therapy) or what we call ‘stoicism’ producing individual agency and action instead of individual sedation and detachment.

    WE do not need perfect replication of experience to communicate it, we need only sufficient replication of experience, and of experience we need replication we need only those that produce agency not delusion and sedation.

    So yes, (and we can produce very solid metrics on this) the infant, child, youth, adolescent, young adult, establishing adult, established adult, and reproductive-cycle-complete adult demonstrate very different demands for methods of mindfulness.

    So yes, it’s not an opinion, that demand for mythos fulfills the needs of the weak, unaccomplished, lacking agency, and of low sexual, social, economic, and political value, and we find that the method of producing mindfulness changes as we increase our network of relationships and command over our destiny (agency). In that we increase our tools (paradigms) as we increase our agency.

    So yes, children (ignorant, lacking relationships, lacking ability, lacking capital, and lacking power) seek success in their dreams to satisfy their low status, and yes people who have high status do the opposite.

    Humans are very simple creatures. The strong law (command), the wealthy reciprocity ( trade), the weak storytelling (gossip, rallying).

    And no amount of postmodern prose will alter those facts.

    We pursue the narrative (paradigm) that suits our power in order to fulfill our will to power.

    If you had power able to influence, leaders worth leading, something to exchange, then you would not need a fantasy with which to escape reality. But the weak do not. They tell stories to themselves and others to ‘make it through the day’ given the hard reality of their low status (sexual, social, economic, political market value).

    hence why I say there is nothing in christianity that cannot be taught as a stoic virtue – without the lies. And nothining good in the search for ‘experience’ (delusion and sedation) that cannot be better provided by agency (truth and training). It is just (a) more expensive to train people in stoic virtues, (b) easier and cheaper to deceive them with sophisms instead, (c) those cheap and easy narratives are methods of deception that prevent the individual from learning how to falsify the OTHER nonsense thrown at him.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 11:05:00 UTC

  • “Curt: Is Your Language Pseudo-Scientific?”

    October 30th, 2018 11:25 AM “CURT: IS YOUR LANGUAGE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC?” (no, but it’s a very good question that deserves an answer)

    —-“I enjoy your humanist stance Curt Doolittle and with most of your ideas I find myself in concordance. My only caveat with your performance is this psuedo-scientific language – almost every other word is some phrase or term of references, especially from the realm of psychology. “— Christian Kalafut

    Christian, Excellent (not unique, but rare) and worthy criticism. Well done. This (vocabulary) is always a problem when trying to provide the only non-nonsensical model of philosophy, which is to reorganize properties, categories, relations, and values in response to advances in knowledge. Every theorist (‘Reformer’ is my prefer term) who attempts to increase the coherence between science and vernacular, across the fields is faced with the challenge of new terms (neologisms), redefining terms, and preserving terms, and doing so sufficiently that he’s free of criticism. To unite all the fields I had to create a common language, and so I appropriated the terms from each that were the ‘least wrong’ and created definitions in series to deflate them. I rely on one spectrum from cognitive science (psychosis <-> autism) by Baron Cohen, and I map demonstrated interests (that which we demonstrate we treat as property by defending), -> to moral bias (Hadit), -> to stages of the prey drive, -> to reward systems, -> to personality traits, -> to gender differences in brain structure resulting in that spectrum. This changes the content (model) of the behavioral vocabulary in ‘psychology’ from projection(imagination via sympathy and conformity) to demonstration (observation: science, and a division of cognitive labor). Thereby reforming psychology from projection to demonstration to physical construction and operation (neural economy) This cognitive division of labor is what I use as the basis of reforming ‘sociology’ under what I call Compatibilism(market) rather than Equality(monopoly) – and the competition between the classes, which serves as a further extension of perception and cognition to the group, wherein the group performs ‘calculation’ of ‘the good (the interest of the polity)’ by continuous tests of voluntary cooperation (reciprocity) – thereby EXPANDING the neural economy from the individual to the group, tribe, nation, civilization, mankind. And to ameliorate this competition between individuals and groups at all scales i use international law (demonstrated means of voluntary cooperation) under reciprocity as the ‘equals sign’ of human action. This results in ‘Natural Law’ as the means of assisting in calculation (cooperation at scale). And it changes from the via positiva of conformity and suppression of individual preference to preserve costly cooperation (antiquity) to the via negativa of conflict suppression and increase in individual preference to take advantage of cheap cooperation (modernity). This changes the discipline we call sociology to observation of agents with partial information thereby uniting psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy – providing a single language and model of all human behavior from the neurological to the international. As far as I know, further increases in the precision of this model will have no impact on decidability provided by it just as newtonian physics is sufficient for all human scale decidability despite increases in precision provided by einstein physics at prior and post human scale. And this is sufficient because humans can only act at human scale, regardless of their perceptions. So, while it is takes a HUGE vocabulary reformation (models of properties, categories, relations, and values) to change from the projections to demonstrations, and from monopoly to markets of behavior, and from static consensus to evolutionary calculation – thereby altering our ENTIRE body of knowledge to reflect the model of ECONOMICS(darwin/markets/equilibrium) that is true, rather than MATHEMATICS (christian/monopolies/equalities) that is false. So yes, as always, in every era (rational(Greek), empirical(early british), scientific(Darwin – european), technological(Turing-Chomsky-anglo american), and now ‘economic-neurological’ (me)), we require a reformation of our network of ideas, and yes it is a costly reformation, because it requires a lot of re-learning. I don’t claim to be a great communicator. I just claim to be correct. 　

    —“My only complaint aside, you’re very interesting and I would love to chat with you!”—

    Any time. 　

    —“Final ?: Have you read Barzun?”—

    I don’t’ find essayists interesting, because i am painfully empirical, and while I can absorb information endlessly I get very ‘tired’ with sentimental prose including value judgements loading and framing. So while I know of some of his ideas, I don’t find them helpful at my level of inquiry (free association, reason, calculation, and computation). In general I just read science and history and unfortunately not only have I lost the ability to suspend disbelief in fiction, I have lost the ability to suspend judgement in essay form, and in both cases, I find it tedious and painful (like listening to gossip.) That isn’t a good thing but it’s a consequence of doing my work for so many years. So that’s why I tell people, I do science, write law, using the rhetorical structure of philosophy and do so to end deceit by pseudoscience (sophism of the technical), philosophy(sophism of the rational) and theology (sophism of the mythological), Cheers.

  • The Future of Man

    October 30th, 2018 11:49 AM [S]o we have the genes for autobiographical (perfect) memory and we know the brain structure required. We have the genes for eliminating or drastically reducing pain. We have the genes for eliminating lactic acid buildup that would let us run continuously without tiring. We have the genes for heart size that improve our exercise ability. We have the genes for muscle density that improve our strength. It will take longer to find the genes for intelligence since there appear to be many involved, and it may be a developmental consequence of complexity. We will eventually find a way to prohibit errors in replication that give rise to accumulated cellular damage and eventually cancer. And it’s not inconceivable that we could begin our productive lives at 5-7 years old, and live in good health to well over 100. So, that revolution, if it is on the horizon, will be the next ‘big thing’. And one must choose between that vision (musk and augmentation) versus independent sentient machines (which I think will remain forever expensive, and I’m not sure will innovate faster than networks of humans will.)

  • “Curt: Is Your Language Pseudo-Scientific?”

    October 30th, 2018 11:25 AM “CURT: IS YOUR LANGUAGE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC?” (no, but it’s a very good question that deserves an answer)

    —-“I enjoy your humanist stance Curt Doolittle and with most of your ideas I find myself in concordance. My only caveat with your performance is this psuedo-scientific language – almost every other word is some phrase or term of references, especially from the realm of psychology. “— Christian Kalafut

    Christian, Excellent (not unique, but rare) and worthy criticism. Well done. This (vocabulary) is always a problem when trying to provide the only non-nonsensical model of philosophy, which is to reorganize properties, categories, relations, and values in response to advances in knowledge. Every theorist (‘Reformer’ is my prefer term) who attempts to increase the coherence between science and vernacular, across the fields is faced with the challenge of new terms (neologisms), redefining terms, and preserving terms, and doing so sufficiently that he’s free of criticism. To unite all the fields I had to create a common language, and so I appropriated the terms from each that were the ‘least wrong’ and created definitions in series to deflate them. I rely on one spectrum from cognitive science (psychosis <-> autism) by Baron Cohen, and I map demonstrated interests (that which we demonstrate we treat as property by defending), -> to moral bias (Hadit), -> to stages of the prey drive, -> to reward systems, -> to personality traits, -> to gender differences in brain structure resulting in that spectrum. This changes the content (model) of the behavioral vocabulary in ‘psychology’ from projection(imagination via sympathy and conformity) to demonstration (observation: science, and a division of cognitive labor). Thereby reforming psychology from projection to demonstration to physical construction and operation (neural economy) This cognitive division of labor is what I use as the basis of reforming ‘sociology’ under what I call Compatibilism(market) rather than Equality(monopoly) – and the competition between the classes, which serves as a further extension of perception and cognition to the group, wherein the group performs ‘calculation’ of ‘the good (the interest of the polity)’ by continuous tests of voluntary cooperation (reciprocity) – thereby EXPANDING the neural economy from the individual to the group, tribe, nation, civilization, mankind. And to ameliorate this competition between individuals and groups at all scales i use international law (demonstrated means of voluntary cooperation) under reciprocity as the ‘equals sign’ of human action. This results in ‘Natural Law’ as the means of assisting in calculation (cooperation at scale). And it changes from the via positiva of conformity and suppression of individual preference to preserve costly cooperation (antiquity) to the via negativa of conflict suppression and increase in individual preference to take advantage of cheap cooperation (modernity). This changes the discipline we call sociology to observation of agents with partial information thereby uniting psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy – providing a single language and model of all human behavior from the neurological to the international. As far as I know, further increases in the precision of this model will have no impact on decidability provided by it just as newtonian physics is sufficient for all human scale decidability despite increases in precision provided by einstein physics at prior and post human scale. And this is sufficient because humans can only act at human scale, regardless of their perceptions. So, while it is takes a HUGE vocabulary reformation (models of properties, categories, relations, and values) to change from the projections to demonstrations, and from monopoly to markets of behavior, and from static consensus to evolutionary calculation – thereby altering our ENTIRE body of knowledge to reflect the model of ECONOMICS(darwin/markets/equilibrium) that is true, rather than MATHEMATICS (christian/monopolies/equalities) that is false. So yes, as always, in every era (rational(Greek), empirical(early british), scientific(Darwin – european), technological(Turing-Chomsky-anglo american), and now ‘economic-neurological’ (me)), we require a reformation of our network of ideas, and yes it is a costly reformation, because it requires a lot of re-learning. I don’t claim to be a great communicator. I just claim to be correct. 　

    —“My only complaint aside, you’re very interesting and I would love to chat with you!”—

    Any time. 　

    —“Final ?: Have you read Barzun?”—

    I don’t’ find essayists interesting, because i am painfully empirical, and while I can absorb information endlessly I get very ‘tired’ with sentimental prose including value judgements loading and framing. So while I know of some of his ideas, I don’t find them helpful at my level of inquiry (free association, reason, calculation, and computation). In general I just read science and history and unfortunately not only have I lost the ability to suspend disbelief in fiction, I have lost the ability to suspend judgement in essay form, and in both cases, I find it tedious and painful (like listening to gossip.) That isn’t a good thing but it’s a consequence of doing my work for so many years. So that’s why I tell people, I do science, write law, using the rhetorical structure of philosophy and do so to end deceit by pseudoscience (sophism of the technical), philosophy(sophism of the rational) and theology (sophism of the mythological), Cheers.

  • So we have the genes for autobiographical (perfect) memory and we know the brain

    So we have the genes for autobiographical (perfect) memory and we know the brain structure required. We have the genes for eliminating lactic acid buildup that would let us run continuously without tiring. We have the genes for heart size that improve our exercise ability. We have the genes for muscle density that improve our strength. It will take longer to find the genes for intelligence since there appear to be many involved, and it may be a developmental consequence of complexity. We will eventually find a way to prohibit errors in replication that give rise to accumulated cellular damage and eventually cancer. And it’s not inconceivable that we could begin our productive lives at 5-7 years old, and live in good health to well over 100. So, that revolution, if it is on the horizon, will be the next ‘big thing’. And one must choose between that vision (musk and augmentation) versus independent sentient machines (which I think will remain forever expensive, and I’m not sure will innovate faster than networks of humans will.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 11:49:00 UTC

  • “CURT: IS YOUR LANGUAGE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC?” (no, but it’s a very good question t

    “CURT: IS YOUR LANGUAGE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC?”

    (no, but it’s a very good question that deserves an answer)

    —-“I enjoy your humanist stance Curt Doolittle and with most of your ideas I find myself in concordance. My only caveat with your performance is this psuedo-scientific language – almost every other word is some phrase or term of references, especially from the realm of psychology. “— Christian Kalafut

    Christian,

    Excellent (not unique, but rare) and worthy criticism. Well done.

    This (vocabulary) is always a problem when trying to provide the only non-nonsensical model of philosophy, which is to reorganize properties, categories, relations, and values in response to advances in knowledge.

    Every theorist (‘Reformer’ is my prefer term) who attempts to increase the coherence between science and vernacular, across the fields is faced with the challenge of new terms (neologisms), redefining terms, and preserving terms, and doing so sufficiently that he’s free of criticism.

    To unite all the fields I had to create a common language, and so I appropriated the terms from each that were the ‘least wrong’ and created definitions in series to deflate them.

    I rely on one spectrum from cognitive science (psychosis <-> autism) by Baron Cohen, and I map demonstrated interests (that which we demonstrate we treat as property by defending), -> to moral bias (Hadit), -> to stages of the prey drive, -> to reward systems, -> to personality traits, -> to gender differences in brain structure resulting in that spectrum.

    This changes the content (model) of the behavioral vocabulary in ‘psychology’ from projection(imagination via sympathy and conformity) to demonstration (observation: science, and a division of cognitive labor). Thereby reforming psychology from projection to demonstration to physical construction and operation (neural economy)

    This cognitive division of labor is what I use as the basis of reforming ‘sociology’ under what I call Compatibilism(market) rather than Equality(monopoly) – and the competition between the classes, which serves as a further extension of perception and cognition to the group, wherein the group performs ‘calculation’ of ‘the good (the interest of the polity)’ by continuous tests of voluntary cooperation (reciprocity) – thereby EXPANDING the neural economy from the individual to the group, tribe, nation, civilization, mankind.

    And to ameliorate this competition between individuals and groups at all scales i use international law (demonstrated means of voluntary cooperation) under reciprocity as the ‘equals sign’ of human action. This results in ‘Natural Law’ as the means of assisting in calculation (cooperation at scale).

    And it changes from the via positiva of conformity and suppression of individual preference to preserve costly cooperation (antiquity) to the via negativa of conflict suppression and increase in individual preference to take advantage of cheap cooperation (modernity).

    This changes the discipline we call sociology to observation of agents with partial information thereby uniting psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy – providing a single language and model of all human behavior from the neurological to the international.

    As far as I know, further increases in the precision of this model will have no impact on decidability provided by it just as newtonian physics is sufficient for all human scale decidability despite increases in precision provided by einstein physics at prior and post human scale. And this is sufficient because humans can only act at human scale, regardless of their perceptions.

    So, while it is takes a HUGE vocabulary reformation (models of properties, categories, relations, and values) to change from the projections to demonstrations, and from monopoly to markets of behavior, and from static consensus to evolutionary calculation – thereby altering our ENTIRE body of knowledge to reflect the model of ECONOMICS(darwin/markets/equilibrium) that is true, rather than MATHEMATICS (christian/monopolies/equalities) that is false.

    So yes, as always, in every era (rational(Greek), empirical(early british), scientific(Darwin – european), technological(Turing-Chomsky-anglo american), and now ‘economic-neurological’ (me)), we require a reformation of our network of ideas, and yes it is a costly reformation, because it requires a lot of re-learning.

    I don’t claim to be a great communicator. I just claim to be correct.

    —“My only complaint aside, you’re very interesting and I would love to chat with you!”—

    Any time.

    —“Final ?: Have you read Barzun?”—

    I don’t’ find essayists interesting, because i am painfully empirical, and while I can absorb information endlessly I get very ‘tired’ with sentimental prose including value judgements loading and framing. So while I know of some of his ideas, I don’t find them helpful at my level of inquiry (free association, reason, calculation, and computation).

    In general I just read science and history and unfortunately not only have I lost the ability to suspend disbelief in fiction, I have lost the ability to suspend judgement in essay form, and in both cases, I find it tedious and painful (like listening to gossip.) That isn’t a good thing but it’s a consequence of doing my work for so many years.

    So that’s why I tell people, I do science, write law, using the rhetorical structure of philosophy and do so to end deceit by pseudoscience (sophism of the technical), philosophy(sophism of the rational) and theology (sophism of the mythological),

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 11:25:00 UTC

  • IT’S NOT COMPLICATED: Law(Science)…………….. = Testimony (Measurements) P

    IT’S NOT COMPLICATED:

    Law(Science)…………….. = Testimony (Measurements)

    Philosophy(Rationalism) = Excuse (Justifications)

    Theology(Fictionalism).. = Fiction ( Deception)

    The Grammar Used Tells You Everything About The Argument Used.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 10:07:00 UTC