Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • 1 – Point (externality to the self) 2 – Line (measurement) 3 – Area (geometry) 4

    1 – Point (externality to the self)

    2 – Line (measurement)

    3 – Area (geometry)

    4 – Volume (calculus)

    5 – Motion (fixed point)

    6 – Relative Motion (relative points)

    7 – Relative Equilibrations (models/simulations)

    AND

    1) Identity (non-conflation)

    2) internal consistency (logical),

    3) external consistency (correspondence) ….

    4) Existential Possibility(Operationalism),

    5) Parsimony(limits),

    6) Full Accounting…

    7) Morality(voluntary transfers),

    Seven Moral Warranties compete science, and unify truth, science, philosophy, morality, law, politics and economics.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-24 10:14:00 UTC

  • Psychologizing: The Great Pseudoscientific Deceit

    [O]nce you learn propertarianism’s basic principles: acquisition, property en toto, inventory, transaction cost, opportunity cost, cooperation, suppression of free riding, reproductive strategy and group evolutionary strategy, and all speech as negotiation for acquisition, you replace totalitarian Freudian psychology and cosmopolitan sociology with universal amoral, unloaded, rational incentives. And when you do that you see all psychologism get as a vast language of deception and manipulation for encouraging parasitism and consumption. Humanity like all other creatures exists in the physical universe, and has evolved the means of estimating the future and acting to change it, capturing the difference for his benefit. The only ‘shame’ is theft. The only oath, not to steal.

  • Psychologizing: The Great Pseudoscientific Deceit

    [O]nce you learn propertarianism’s basic principles: acquisition, property en toto, inventory, transaction cost, opportunity cost, cooperation, suppression of free riding, reproductive strategy and group evolutionary strategy, and all speech as negotiation for acquisition, you replace totalitarian Freudian psychology and cosmopolitan sociology with universal amoral, unloaded, rational incentives. And when you do that you see all psychologism get as a vast language of deception and manipulation for encouraging parasitism and consumption. Humanity like all other creatures exists in the physical universe, and has evolved the means of estimating the future and acting to change it, capturing the difference for his benefit. The only ‘shame’ is theft. The only oath, not to steal.

  • Actually, I’m Not An Atheist

    (important piece) (on the existence of gods)

    —“You’re one of my favorite Catholic Atheists”—

    [W]ell, thank you. Although, while a scientist, I am not an atheist. I am just what is called a Naturalist, and not a Supernaturalist. I understand that Gods exist. They exist as numbers exist. If I was an atheist you wouldn’t catch me praying (talking to god) regularly. Which I do. Often. I just have a very esoteric concept of the nature of a god’s existence. And I separate the existence of gods from primitive notions of religion. I am not sure what the difference is between a supernaturally existential deity, and a worldwide knowledge of socrates, or a regional knowledge of a saint, or a local knowledge of ancestors, and praying to the knowledge of that personality, and those memories, for love, support, advice, and counsel. For various reasons I am fairly certain prayer ‘works’. I am fairly certain gods ‘work’. I am fairly certain that gods, ritual, and prayer are a competitive advantage. And whether one chooses to explain away all of this scientifically as psychology, or accept it metaphysically, or embody it supernaturally, is merely a function of one’s abilities, biases, and preferences. As far as I know gods exist as numbers exist, and gods ‘work’ for the same reason numbers work. There are consequences to the existence and use of numbers that transcend human abilities to perceive and conceptualize. If you construct various axioms, the resulting patterns can be rich sources of information – especially when combined with new experiences. If you construct stories of gods, heroes and saints there is no difference. So as far as I know, the study of gods, heroes and saints literally reconstructs them in your mind, and you can ask them questions if you learn how. It is even more useful to do the same with one’s ancestors since you carry not only those ideas but their genes, and the biases and benefits that they passed down to you. Our ancestors thought in physicality or spirituality because they did not have the concept of INFORMATION that is the model we use today to understand the physical world. And it is INFORMATION that economists, philosophers and behaviorists such as myself use as the model for describing the human world, and not spirituality or physicality. I have no idea if information in my head, yours, and others, interacts in some quantum fashion. I can’t state it one way or the other. I suspect that if it does it is so subtle that it is only accessible to us in periods of self honesty. But if in fact the information in our heads creates synchronicity when we are subject to similar stimuli then that would produce an equal effect. So either way it is irrelevant. It just works. And group prayer or ritual would construct new axioms and biases and produce similarly synchronous knowledge in all of us. Now religion – as in a ritualistic group gathering – is something else altogether because the repetition of ritual, the submission to the throng, and the gregariousness we fell to the pack, all of which are present in the church or temple, produces a profound feeling of safety similar to that felt by our animal cousins when running with the herd or pack. It is this feeling we call ‘spiritual’ or ‘submission’: it’s a mild euphoria that spiritualists seek to amplify through practice. And it is one of the most universal and desired feelings of mankind. Combining this experience of mild euphoria with knowledge of gods, heroes and saints produces a form of honesty within the self that we cannot produce by other means. It is this clarity or honesty that gives religions their power. We can, if we pray, or contemplate, use the mythological structure of information, along without our existing knowledge, to find solutions – too seek and obtain answers as ‘insights’. And at worst we can find comfort in the throng. (Which we now overload with consumption until we realize it is meaningless, and that we have been deceived – if not drugged – by commercial information.) As yet we do not know how to produce the same effect as religion and prayer by any other means. I suspect I know how to do it. The question is whether it is possible to provide sufficient incentive to train enough people to do it to cause a reformation of the methods by which we teach every generation the Christian Discipline of Love into something more modern. I struggle with this problem and it’s probably the hardest problem I’ve tried to solve. And that’s saying something…..

  • Actually, I’m Not An Atheist

    (important piece) (on the existence of gods)

    —“You’re one of my favorite Catholic Atheists”—

    [W]ell, thank you. Although, while a scientist, I am not an atheist. I am just what is called a Naturalist, and not a Supernaturalist. I understand that Gods exist. They exist as numbers exist. If I was an atheist you wouldn’t catch me praying (talking to god) regularly. Which I do. Often. I just have a very esoteric concept of the nature of a god’s existence. And I separate the existence of gods from primitive notions of religion. I am not sure what the difference is between a supernaturally existential deity, and a worldwide knowledge of socrates, or a regional knowledge of a saint, or a local knowledge of ancestors, and praying to the knowledge of that personality, and those memories, for love, support, advice, and counsel. For various reasons I am fairly certain prayer ‘works’. I am fairly certain gods ‘work’. I am fairly certain that gods, ritual, and prayer are a competitive advantage. And whether one chooses to explain away all of this scientifically as psychology, or accept it metaphysically, or embody it supernaturally, is merely a function of one’s abilities, biases, and preferences. As far as I know gods exist as numbers exist, and gods ‘work’ for the same reason numbers work. There are consequences to the existence and use of numbers that transcend human abilities to perceive and conceptualize. If you construct various axioms, the resulting patterns can be rich sources of information – especially when combined with new experiences. If you construct stories of gods, heroes and saints there is no difference. So as far as I know, the study of gods, heroes and saints literally reconstructs them in your mind, and you can ask them questions if you learn how. It is even more useful to do the same with one’s ancestors since you carry not only those ideas but their genes, and the biases and benefits that they passed down to you. Our ancestors thought in physicality or spirituality because they did not have the concept of INFORMATION that is the model we use today to understand the physical world. And it is INFORMATION that economists, philosophers and behaviorists such as myself use as the model for describing the human world, and not spirituality or physicality. I have no idea if information in my head, yours, and others, interacts in some quantum fashion. I can’t state it one way or the other. I suspect that if it does it is so subtle that it is only accessible to us in periods of self honesty. But if in fact the information in our heads creates synchronicity when we are subject to similar stimuli then that would produce an equal effect. So either way it is irrelevant. It just works. And group prayer or ritual would construct new axioms and biases and produce similarly synchronous knowledge in all of us. Now religion – as in a ritualistic group gathering – is something else altogether because the repetition of ritual, the submission to the throng, and the gregariousness we fell to the pack, all of which are present in the church or temple, produces a profound feeling of safety similar to that felt by our animal cousins when running with the herd or pack. It is this feeling we call ‘spiritual’ or ‘submission’: it’s a mild euphoria that spiritualists seek to amplify through practice. And it is one of the most universal and desired feelings of mankind. Combining this experience of mild euphoria with knowledge of gods, heroes and saints produces a form of honesty within the self that we cannot produce by other means. It is this clarity or honesty that gives religions their power. We can, if we pray, or contemplate, use the mythological structure of information, along without our existing knowledge, to find solutions – too seek and obtain answers as ‘insights’. And at worst we can find comfort in the throng. (Which we now overload with consumption until we realize it is meaningless, and that we have been deceived – if not drugged – by commercial information.) As yet we do not know how to produce the same effect as religion and prayer by any other means. I suspect I know how to do it. The question is whether it is possible to provide sufficient incentive to train enough people to do it to cause a reformation of the methods by which we teach every generation the Christian Discipline of Love into something more modern. I struggle with this problem and it’s probably the hardest problem I’ve tried to solve. And that’s saying something…..

  • ACTUALLY I’M NOT AN ATHEIST. (important piece) (on the existence of gods) —“Yo

    ACTUALLY I’M NOT AN ATHEIST.

    (important piece) (on the existence of gods)

    —“You’re one of my favorite Catholic Atheists”—

    Well, thank you.

    Although, while a scientist, I am not an atheist. I am just what is called a Naturalist, and not a Supernaturalist. I understand that Gods exist. They exist as numbers exist. If I was an atheist you wouldn’t catch me praying (talking to god) regularly. Which I do. Often. I just have a very esoteric concept of the nature of a god’s existence. And I separate the existence of gods from primitive notions of religion.

    I am not sure what the difference is between a supernaturally existential deity, and a worldwide knowledge of socrates, or a regional knowledge of a saint, or a local knowledge of ancestors, and praying to the knowledge of that personality, and those memories, for love, support, advice, and counsel.

    For various reasons I am fairly certain prayer ‘works’. I am fairly certain gods ‘work’. I am fairly certain that gods, ritual, and prayer are a competitive advantage. And whether one chooses to explain away all of this scientifically as psychology, or accept it metaphysically, or embody it supernaturally, is merely a function of one’s abilities, biases, and preferences.

    As far as I know gods exist as numbers exist, and gods ‘work’ for the same reason numbers work. There are consequences to the existence and use of numbers that transcend human abilities to perceive and conceptualize. If you construct various axioms, the resulting patterns can be rich sources of information – especially when combined with new experiences. If you construct stories of gods, heroes and saints there is no difference. So as far as I know, the study of gods, heroes and saints literally reconstructs them in your mind, and you can ask them questions if you learn how. It is even more useful to do the same with one’s ancestors since you carry not only those ideas but their genes, and the biases and benefits that they passed down to you.

    Our ancestors thought in physicality or spirituality because they did not have the concept of INFORMATION that is the model we use today to understand the physical world. And it is INFORMATION that economists, philosophers and behaviorists such as myself use as the model for describing the human world, and not spirituality or physicality.

    I have no idea if information in my head, yours, and others, interacts in some quantum fashion. I can’t state it one way or the other. I suspect that if it does it is so subtle that it is only accessible to us in periods of self honesty. But if in fact the information in our heads creates synchronicity when we are subject to similar stimuli then that would produce an equal effect. So either way it is irrelevant. It just works. And group prayer or ritual would construct new axioms and biases and produce similarly synchronous knowledge in all of us.

    Now religion – as in a ritualistic group gathering – is something else altogether because the repetition of ritual, the submission to the throng, and the gregariousness we fell to the pack, all of which are present in the church or temple, produces a profound feeling of safety similar to that felt by our animal cousins when running with the herd or pack. It is this feeling we call ‘spiritual’ or ‘submission’: it’s a mild euphoria that spiritualists seek to amplify through practice. And it is one of the most universal and desired feelings of mankind.

    Combining this experience of mild euphoria with knowledge of gods, heroes and saints produces a form of honesty within the self that we cannot produce by other means. It is this clarity or honesty that gives religions their power. We can, if we pray, or contemplate, use the mythological structure of information, along without our existing knowledge, to find solutions – too seek and obtain answers as ‘insights’. And at worst we can find comfort in the throng. (Which we now overload with consumption until we realize it is meaningless, and that we have been deceived – if not drugged – by commercial information.)

    As yet we do not know how to produce the same effect as religion and prayer by any other means. I suspect I know how to do it. The question is whether it is possible to provide sufficient incentive to train enough people to do it to cause a reformation of the methods by which we teach every generation the Christian Discipline of Love into something more modern. I struggle with this problem and it’s probably the hardest problem I’ve tried to solve.

    And that’s saying something…..

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-21 11:24:00 UTC

  • THE GREAT PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC DECEIT: PSYCHOLOGIZING Once you learn propertarianism

    THE GREAT PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC DECEIT: PSYCHOLOGIZING

    Once you learn propertarianism’s basic principles: acquisition, property en toto, inventory, transaction cost, opportunity cost, cooperation, suppression of free riding, reproductive strategy and group evolutionary strategy, and all speech as negotiation for acquisition… you replace totalitarian Freudian psychology and cosmopolitan sociology with universal amoral, unloaded, rational incentives.

    And when you do that you see all psychologism get as a vast language of deception and manipulation for encouraging parasitism and consumption.

    Humanity like all other creatures exists in the physical universe, and has evolved the means of estimating the future and acting to change it, capturing the difference for his benefit.

    The only ‘shame’ is theft.

    The only oath, not to steal.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-20 05:42:00 UTC

  • (nerd science)(stupid gun stuff) Just watched two videos. Trying under full auto

    (nerd science)(stupid gun stuff)

    Just watched two videos. Trying under full auto to break AR15 and AK47.

    Barrels failed on both guns. But the AR15 at 900 and 3x the rounds of the AK at 300. Why? Because in the time it takes you to change a 30 round mag, the barrel can largely recover, as well as the gas system. If you switch to 50 (AR15) and 75(AK) round mags, the barrel will not have that recovery. The AK heated up much faster than the AR, and then on top of it, they put the AK through a 75 round mag, and then the next 30 round mag wouldn’t feed, and the barrel was curved as hell. The AR barrel busted at the narrow point before the gas outlet.

    With the new 416 I prefer the AR simply because it’s so damned easy to shoot. But you know for general badassery the AK still rules.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-15 14:53:00 UTC

  • “THE GREAT DISTRACTION: THE 20TH CENTURY EXPERIMENT WITH COSMOPOLITANISM’S SECON

    “THE GREAT DISTRACTION: THE 20TH CENTURY EXPERIMENT WITH COSMOPOLITANISM’S SECOND ATTEMPT AT MYSTICISM AND THE SECOND TRIUMPH OF SCIENCE”

    I mean, pretty much anything written through 1929 was pretty good. But starting with Boaz, Marx and Freud, and culminating in the 1970’s, cosmopolitanism and feminism tried and failed to create a new order – they merely destroyed the european order. Thanks to science we will overthrow conquest of the west by women and jews and slaves a second time.

    Someone else want to write that book? It needs writing.

    I have enough work to do.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-11 07:36:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “WHAT IS THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN PROPERTARIANISM?” Propertarianism is a Critic

    Q&A: “WHAT IS THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN PROPERTARIANISM?”

    Propertarianism is a Critical(what-may-not) and therefore scientific system of logic, and not a Justificationary(what-should) and therefore idealistic system of logic. So propertarianism seeks to prevent harm: ‘badness’. Everything that does not prevent harm is a candidate for benefit: ‘goodness’.

    Just as Testimonialism prevents falsehood, leaving only candidates for truth; and just as Propertarian ethics seeks to prevent lying and theft, leaving only candidates for honest voluntary transfer; Propertarian politics seeks to prevent the harm women do, but not what they should do, leaving only candidates for not harming.

    Men pay for their enfranchisement with military and emergency services. In propertarianism women pay for their enfranchisement with child bearing, and care-taking services. These are high costs, but they are necessary costs.

    Rule of law is identical regardless of gender; policy exists to promote the family not the individual; and policy is constructed by contracts between ‘houses’.

    And ‘houses’ are constructed by gender and class. So women have their own house to negotiate with males, just as the upper classes have a house to negotiate with the middle. Membership in houses is by demonstrated accomplishment.

    So, what do women (and men) do under Propertarianism? Anything they want that doesn’t impose costs upon others. Do nothing unto others you would not want done unto you.

    I am trying to prevent the repeat of the damage that women have done to civilization because of their biological biases, just as we have struggled to prevent the damage done by men because of their biological biases.

    Women (with assistance from the enlightenment thinkers) destroyed the west via the voting booth. It is possible to eliminate the means by which they destroyed the west. And finally succeed in enfranchising women as we have enfranchised other men: by facilitating voluntary exchanges between people with different reproductive strategies. The compromise path will prevent extremes.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-11 04:10:00 UTC