Theme: Science

  • RT @Graf_von_Dienen: @tradslav No… I mean we accept our nature as conquerors,

    RT @Graf_von_Dienen: @tradslav No… I mean we accept our nature as conquerors, scientists, navigators, etc and not say no. Read Junger. fo…


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 00:48:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/823693942617161728

  • Retweeted David (@Graf_von_Dienen): @tradslav No… I mean we accept our nature

    Retweeted David (@Graf_von_Dienen):

    @tradslav No… I mean we accept our nature as conquerors, scientists, navigators, etc and not say no. Read Junger. follow @curtdoolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 19:48:00 UTC

  • physics -> law-> philosophy,-> ideology, -> theology, -> fantasy -> insanity

    physics -> law-> philosophy,-> ideology, -> theology, -> fantasy -> insanity


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 11:01:00 UTC

  • “Hello Curt. Do you know the book Meta-Philosophy : Philosophy from a philosophi

    —“Hello Curt. Do you know the book Meta-Philosophy : Philosophy from a philosophical perspective?”— Nate

    I tend to use scientific language to make similar statements. For example, I would say that philosophy consists in the use of reason to provide us with a means decidability.

    But that the means of decidability requires a premise, and that premise is ‘an outcome’ or outputs. So given any set of inputs how can we produce a given set of outputs? And whereas in the physical world we are limited by the resources, methods of transformation, and time available. But our methods of transformation are either true or false. In the world of preferences, we are instead most limited in our ability to convince others to prefer what we choose to prefer. And unfortunately, nearly unlimited in the methods by which we can use deception to obtain their agreement upon such a preference.

    Yet, if we use reason to provide us decidability in truthful testimony proper, we can provide decidability across domains, whether they be matters of the physical, personal, and social. Or whether they be matters of limits, preferences or truths.

    I can’t say enough that I don’t take philosophy seriously, and that I don’t read it at all. I actually have come to the conclusion that philosophy as practiced is as harmful as theology.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 10:53:00 UTC

  • Francisco Antonio: –“QUESTION: How does mysticism compare with pseudo-science?”

    Francisco Antonio: –“QUESTION: How does mysticism compare with pseudo-science?”–

    Example

    1) Mysticism: Supernatural existence,lack of deducibility from testable experience, lack of correspondence, lack of evidence, with anthropomorphic intention, cognitive bias to justify, argument corresponds to previous types of human error. (ex: intentional design) ASSERTION: arbitrary introduction of INTENT

    2) Supernatural existence, lack of deducibility from testable experience, lack of correspondence, lack of evidence, without anthropomorphic intention, cognitive bias to justify, argument corresponds to previous types of human error. (ex: multiple worlds) ASSERTION: arbitrary introduction of EXISTENCE.

    3) the hard one is pseudorationalism, but it basically means artificial insertion of information between the premise and the conclusion. Some people mentioned Kant and Hegel today (kant’s dependence upon the excluded middle is an example).


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 18:48:00 UTC

  • (for super-geeks)(math vs science)(unification of disciplines)(universal epistem

    (for super-geeks)(math vs science)(unification of disciplines)(universal epistemological method) (human scale)

    (read the comments with Davin and I.)

    MATH VS SCIENCE?

    Mathematics is not a science (theoretic system of external correspondence) but a logic (axiomatic system of internal consistency).

    We are, almost universally, fooled by the fact that we cannot imagine all consequences of our axiomatic declarations, and equate this to the same phenomenon of our inability to imagine all consequences of our observations of reality. But axiomatic systems are declared (models) and theoretic systems are observed (reality). When our models and reality appear to correspond, we say that the model appears good or true.

    For this reason mathematical (axiomatic systems) do not produce truths (ultimately parsimonious and completely correspondent descriptions of reality) , but proofs of internal consistency. Theories = True correspondence. Axioms = Proof of internal consistency. Both of which require that we are describing constant relations.

    Until we discover the set of possible operations in the universe (causality or causal particulars) we must content ourselves with descriptions of the consequences of those operations (mathematics), by creating models with which we declare descriptive axioms as a general expression of the unknown causal operations.

    Ergo we can use mathematics to create models of theoretic systems (reality) because axioms express constant relations and the universe operates deterministically (according to a set of rules that produce observably constant relations).

    Science != to Empiricism (that the error of positivism). Instead, identity, logics, empiricism, operations, and morality when tested by limits, full accounting, and parsimony, assist us in removing error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deception from our thoughts, words, and deeds.

    This is why mathematics generally succeeds in representing highly deterministic systems (constant relations of constant categories) but why mathematics fails us in slightly deterministic systems – in particular, heuristic systems (inconstant relations of inconstant categories.)

    Mathematics is an abstraction of operations. A generalization for the expression of observations about which we do not know the operations.

    Science on the other hand ensures that we use categories, sets, mathematical descriptions, empirical correspondence, causal operations, moral reciprocity (in matters of cooperation: social science) and then define limits, test for full accounting, and test for parsimony.

    This process of ensuring is what we call falsification. if a description (theory) can survive all those tests, we can warranty that we have performed due diligence and speak truthfully.

    In other words science provides us with a universal epistemology.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-16 09:45:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM: A DESCRIPTIVE, SCIENTIFIC, ETHICS (important piece) —“Propert

    PROPERTARIANISM: A DESCRIPTIVE, SCIENTIFIC, ETHICS

    (important piece)

    —“Propertarianism is a descriptive framework. A Propertarian would be someone who uses that descriptive framework, and then most of us who are Propertarians are also aristocratic republicans or monarchists (our particular political advocacy).”— Josh Jeppson

    Yes, and I think this gets lost. (As usual it’s my fault.) I conflate the methodology with explanation with the preference.

    1) REFORMATION OF SCIENCE:

    What we call “Propertarianism”, or the combination of Testimonialism (epistemology), Acquisitionism(psychology), Propertarianism (ethics / sociology [cooperation]), and Propertarian Group Evolutionary Strategy(group competition – which still needs a name), creates an internally consistent language and methodology for the truthful, value-free description, comparison, and judgement of human action (and speech).

    As far as I know this framework completes the scientific method, and replaces philosophy, psychology, social science, and reforms law, political science, and economics. I call this framework “The Law of Nature”, which includes “Natural Law (cooperation and competition)” and “Testimonial Law (law of information)” as extensions of Laws of Nature (physical laws).

    The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”

    …. 1 – Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY

    …. …. Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

    …. 2 – Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE

    …. Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

    …. 3 – Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD

    …. Ethics, morality, law, economics

    …. 4 – Law of Testimony – THE TRUE

    …. Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

    …. 5 – Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL

    …. Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness

    2) EXPLANATION OF WESTERN EXCELLENCE:

    The combination of Transcendence, Heroism, Sovereignty, Aristocracy, and the institutional necessity of Markets in Everything as a consequence; Aryan Expansionism (attempt to obtain the status of the gods), and the consequential evolution of non-conflation / deconflation / deflationary truth, reason, rationalism, science; independent judiciary and empirical law; testimony, jury, and senate; property, contract, and competition; the domestication of man from animal, to slave, to serf, to freeman, to sovereign; and the estates of the realm: labor(neutral), burgher(organization/”remuneration”), priesthood(education/’gossip’), aristocracy (rule/force) – all explain the rapid rise of western civilization in the ancient and modern worlds as producing *faster* experimental and therefore adaptive velocity in all aspects of human existence. In other words, it explains the rise of the west in the ancient and modern worlds, and the weakness of the west in the medieval (christian) interim.

    3) EXPLANATION OF THE FALL OF THE WEST

    How the enlightenment was only successful in science, and entirely wrong in everything else – and how the enlightenment was unique to the British, and that all other civilizations reacted *against it*, in a counter-enlightenment, culminating in the Pseudoscientific era (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Frankfurt) the same way that all other civilizations reacted against Greek reason and Roman law in the ancient world(christianity, rabbinical judaism, islamism, confucianism), and the same way that all other civilizations reacted against European Aryanism: ‘heroism, truth, sovereignty, contractualism, competition, and ‘domesticationism’ in the dawn of civilization by producing organized religion (the indo-iranian branch of indo europeans)

    4) RESTORATION OF THE WEST:

    How to restore western civilization to its previous rates of success by completing the scientific Enlightenment and restoring markets in everything: defense/emergency/care, reproduction, production, commons, polities. And in particular, the extension of involuntary warranty on goods and services brought to market, to *information* that is brought to market (published). And the restoration of multiple houses for the purpose of restoring a market for trades between the classes.

    CLOSING

    Propertarianism technically refers to the descriptive ethics alone. But we bundle all of these ideas under the same ‘banner’ (term) for the sake of expediency. But one can advocate for a communist, socialist, democratic humanist, classical liberal, republican, monarchic, fascist, or dicatorship polity using testimonialism, acquisitionism, and propertarianism, and create a constitution for one under strictly (formal operational logic) constructed natural law. But one must do so truthfully and honestly.

    Someone who values each of those governments may or may not have a harder time truthfully defending his preferences. But we can then create compromises between such different political orders, rather than attempt to impose such a political order upon everyone.

    It is very easy to propose sovereignty, classical multi-house monarchy, markets in everything and to do so truthfully and honestly – because that order provided the origin and evolution of the technology of truthful speech we call ‘science’. But to do so we must admit also that the outcome of such a political order is eugenic. Conversely it is harder to propose a democratic humanist order, because it is dysgenic. in the short term it is easier to tolerate a dysgenic order. In the long term it is devolutionary and will destroy the ability to produce either a democratic humanist OR a classical monarchic. For the simple reason that every person at the bottom is more damaging to the political, social, and economic order than every person at the time is advantageous. The uncomfortable history of man is that a minority of men have domesticated men, the way men domesticated all our domesticated animals. And more uncomfortable, that men domesticated women before that. And that’s the origin of our intuitionary skill at domestication.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 10:47:00 UTC

  • GENERAL RULES OF INTAKE (DEFENSE AGAINST PSEUDOSCIENCE) 1) VIA POSITIVA: If the

    GENERAL RULES OF INTAKE (DEFENSE AGAINST PSEUDOSCIENCE)

    1) VIA POSITIVA: If the consequence of any consumption are negative the consequences will be readily visible to the general public with in a generation.

    2) VIA NEGATIVA: There are no positive consequences of consumption only negative consequences of underconsumption or overconsumption. (you can over-consume or under-consume but you cannot improve state by selective consumption.)

    3) CONTENT IS NOT EQUAL TO STATE: Evidence of change in state is evidence of change in state. Evidence of change in content is not evidence of change in state.

    4) HUMAN SCALE OBSERVATION: (A) The evidence is that there is zero truth to all nutritional(chemical) pseudoscience unless it is visibly perceptible change in individuals in a common distribution. (B) The evidence is that there is nearly perfect truth to ‘stereotypical’ assessments of one another. (Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science.)

    SCIENCE I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN OF:

    1 – Pot decreases sperm count and therefore fertility.

    2 – Pot inhibits the formation of memories.

    3 – Pot causes reduction of neural pathways in development (natal, child, and young adulthood. This does not appear to be the case after reaching maturity.

    4 – Given the use of pot for self-medication, use of pot will correlate with many psychological disorders. This is the result of self-selection not causality.

    5 – Pot *appears* to exacerbate predispositions to depression, psychoses and in particular, schizophrenia – and recent research suggests that depression-schizophrenia is a spectrum of causally related phenomenon as are solipsism-autism, hetero-homosexuality, yet we do not yet know why other than (a) runs in families and (b) hints that it is an in-utero developmental cause.

    POSITIVES

    The positive consequences are those that suppress excitable and obsessive behavior in otherwise normal individuals (non-predisposed).

    COMPARISONS

    The use of marijuana vs alcohol can be compared to the difference between coffee, tobacco, and wine – which appears to have social consequences (coffee being a good one). Alcohol exacerbates opportunities for violence, and alcoholism, while pot produces soporific effects instead and is only a gateway for those predisposed to self-medicating. Tobacco produces calming and reduces hunger, but produces anxiety afterward, and cancer in the long term. The most serious consequences for pot and alcohol use are increasing hunger(hyperconsumption) and danger of operating motor vehicles and power equipment. Pot is currently the most cited cause of accidents under influence. and is 500% increase in risk, where alcohol varies from 300-700% increase in risk, except with younger drivers, where it can exceed 25000% increase in risk. So while alcohol peaks at higher risk, pot begins at slightly higher risk.

    IOW: If you operate on human-power-only when under the influence of pot, and do not have predispositions to mental illness, it’s probably the recreational exit of choice.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 11:27:00 UTC

  • ANTI-PHILOSOPHY Science is a method by which we attempt to remove error, bias, w

    ANTI-PHILOSOPHY

    Science is a method by which we attempt to remove error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, theology, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience) from our thoughts and speech. It’s purely reductive.

    1 – Categories are the methods by which we test names for consistency of state, properties and relations.

    2 – The logics are methods by which we test dimensions for internal consistency.

    3 – The empirical is the method by which we test for external consistency (correspondence).

    4 – The operational is the method by which we test for existential possibility.

    5 – Reciprocity is the method by which we test for morality.

    6 – Limits (and full accounting) are the method by which we test for parsimony and completeness.

    Literature is the method by which we construct and communicate fantasies (generate possibilities which we can then test by Scientific Means.

    Philosophical literature is a conflation of fantasy moral literature combined with insufficient testing. In other words, it’s deception. 😉 Hence why philosophers have been accused of doing far more harm than good.

    We read philosophy in order to obtain ideas.

    We read and practice science in order to sift what little truth is contained in them.

    Via Positiva (ideas through free association), Via Negativa (survival from criticism), Via Deceptio ( advocacy without supplying the full suite of criticisms )

    I have seen precious little in philosophy that is other than an attempt to create a literary moral alternative to theology.

    ANOTHER VIEW

    Physical Science (external correspondence)

    Law (reciprocity)

    Logic (internal consistency)

    Accounting (scope)

    Testimony (language)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 10:03:00 UTC

  • PLATONISM IS JUST FRAUD. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. There is no matter except as a functi

    PLATONISM IS JUST FRAUD. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

    There is no matter except as a function of the limits of our actions.

    As far as we know existence is constructed of forces.

    The relations between those forces exist.

    From that set of relations between those forces, some set of operations are possible.

    The states of equilibrium that those forces rest within.

    Everything is constructed from the operations that are possible between those forces.

    Our experience of the universe is limited by the limits of our actions.

    The universe is not capable of introspection, planning, or choice.

    We can, because we can remember, search, model, and forecast, identify the forces and operations at various scales of the universe starting with human scale and working in both directions large and small.

    We can make and test observations and create those theories of observations we call ‘facts’.

    We can use operations to attempt to transform that which we observe between states.

    We can create stories (narratives) theories to attempt to explain those transformations (we call these stories ‘theories’)

    We can create many ‘crutches’ to assist us in memory, recall, comparison, and operation given the limits or our actions (the limits of our perception, memory, categorization, and comparison).

    We call these crutches by many names.

    But they are must memories.

    They exist as memories.

    Memories limited by our ability to act (change state).

    Fragmentary relations subject to constant revision the construction of which we are unable to analyze through introspection.

    The experience of which we cannot analyze through introspection but can analyze through mechanical inspection.

    And through that inspection we can easily observe some variation of (overly simplistically stated) a brainstem that operates purely mechanically.

    a lower brain that senses change in state and rewards or punishes.

    a midbrain that produces wants and incentives.

    an upper brain that performs various complex functions of memory and recall.

    a forebrain that organizes into the language of negotiation the wants of what operates beneath it.

    And our consciousness consists of the experience of what we can judge within a 2-3 second window worth of iterations of stimuli mixed with those memories and fed to different brain regions and the rewards and punishments that our brain gives us as instructions produced through millennia of evolution.

    As far as I know the forces in different states, and the opportunities to change state that we call operations, and our memories exist.

    Giving other-worldly names to nothing other than the experience of memories and the associations we find by searching those memories, is to conflate the physical changes in state, the results of those changes in state upon our ongoing iteration of perceptions, and the reality that exists whether we imagine it or not.

    This conflation, like all forms of conflation, is the origin of deception of the self and others. Conversely, the west is the only civilization to successfully create and retain deflationary truth. We did so because the adults practice law out of necessity, and the warriors pay the price for wishful thinking and pretence. And the priests and the little people including the philosophers are simply malcontents trying to create excuses to circumvent that law and steal.

    SUGGESTION

    We think by suggestion, we communicate by suggestion, we understand by suggestion, but we truth-test through criticism (due diligence).

    And we have a name for those who fail to perform due diligence in order to negotiate on behalf of their wants:

    FRAUD.

    As far as I know, all platonism is fraud. fraud by learned habit. fraud by convenience. fraud by intent.

    BUT ITS JUST FRAUD.

    Humans seek to acquire. If you cannot acquire truthfully, then you are acquiring untruthfully.

    FRAUD.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 14:51:00 UTC