Theme: Truth

  • DEFINING EXISTENCE VERSUS EXPERIENCE Existence = Persistence Experience = Non-Pe

    DEFINING EXISTENCE VERSUS EXPERIENCE

    Existence = Persistence

    Experience = Non-Persistence

    1) We must construct experiences in real time from a combination of brain structure (Vitruvianism), Memory(prior Perception and Association), and Perception(senses), and Association (the measure of which we have no means yet other than IQ to determine).

    2) Existence persists independent of experience.

    3) Some patterns (categories, relations, values) will always be experienced by human minds.

    4) Human minds are indifferent in perception to the degree patterns are indifferently identified.

    5) Cooperation is possible because of indifference in perception, indifference in incentives (acquisitions), and indifference in mirroring (sympathy and empathy).


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 13:48:00 UTC

  • Defining Existence Versus Experience

    Existence = Persistence Experience = Non-Persistence 1) We must construct experiences in real time from a combination of brain structure (Vitruvianism), Memory(prior Perception and Association), and Perception(senses), and Association (the measure of which we have no means yet other than IQ to determine). 2) Existence persists independent of experience. 3) Some patterns (categories, relations, values) will always be experienced by human minds. 4) Human minds are indifferent in perception to the degree patterns are indifferently identified. 5) Cooperation is possible because of indifference in perception, indifference in incentives (acquisitions), and indifference in mirroring (sympathy and empathy).
  • How Real Are You?

    Can you even speak without idealism, mysticism and conflation? You probably don’t know the extent of your infection by the language of deception. Why? Speaking existentially removes the illusion of ad therefore pretense of, knowledge. There isn’t a big difference between “feels” and “ideals”. The difference is between reals and *everything else* including ideals and feels. || Measurement > Real > Analogy > Ideal > Mysticism > Lie.
  • HOW REAL ARE YOU? Can you even speak without idealism, mysticism and conflation?

    HOW REAL ARE YOU?

    Can you even speak without idealism, mysticism and conflation? You probably don’t know the extent of your infection by the language of deception.

    Why? Speaking existentially removes the illusion of ad therefore pretense of, knowledge.

    There isn’t a big difference between “feels” and “ideals”.

    The difference is between reals and *everything else* including ideals and feels.

    || Measurement > Real > Analogy > Ideal > Mysticism > Lie.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 13:07:00 UTC

  • How Real Are You?

    Can you even speak without idealism, mysticism and conflation? You probably don’t know the extent of your infection by the language of deception. Why? Speaking existentially removes the illusion of ad therefore pretense of, knowledge. There isn’t a big difference between “feels” and “ideals”. The difference is between reals and *everything else* including ideals and feels. || Measurement > Real > Analogy > Ideal > Mysticism > Lie.
  • FOR NEW FRIENDS I don’t care about your race, ethnicity, language or culture. Bu

    FOR NEW FRIENDS

    I don’t care about your race, ethnicity, language or culture.

    But I am a prosecutor of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit. In particular I prosecute pseudoscience, philosophy and religion. And in particular I prosecute abrahamic religions as the worst crime of human history (judaism, christianity, and islam).

    My opinion, which I think is about as well informed as is possible, is that science is a universal language of truthful speech; reciprocity is a universal ethic; nationalism is an extension of the family and the optimum social order;

    My opinion is that the only meaningful differences between the races, subraces, and tribes, is the size of our underclasses, our degree of neoteny, and our degree of sexual dimorphism.

    And that we can all transcend into the gods we imagine if we practice truth, reciprocity, nationalism, and a gentle reduction of the size of our underclasses.

    But to do so we must rebel against, disempower, and replace all leadership that uses the top and the bottom against the middle, instead of the middle to constrain the top and the bottom.

    Any man who will fight with me shall be my brother.

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-01 13:55:00 UTC

  • DON’T BE STUPID. Look. Do you understand Locke/Smith/Hume? What about Kant/Marx?

    DON’T BE STUPID.

    Look. Do you understand Locke/Smith/Hume? What about Kant/Marx? Or Darwin/Menger/Spencer/Nietzche? The history of epistemology? Or Hayek/Popper/Turing? Do you understand the foundations of mathematics, logic, economics? Do you understand the limits of logic and mathematics? What about cognitive science, and experimental psychology? What about the history and logic of the common law? Do you understand comparative institutional, economic, and demographic history? If you do, do you understand one of those series? Two of them, or all of them?

    Of course you don’t. You’re a normal person. You’re probably a smart normal person. You might even be a smart well read person. But its nearly impossible to master all of those fields sufficiently to identify how to reform them so that they operate scientifically.

    But why the hell, if you don’t understand ALL of those disciplines, do you think you’re going to understand my work in Propertarianism without some serious effort over more than a year? I mean, I cover the *entire* spectrum from metaphysics to aesthetics. Everything. ALL OF IT.

    You won’t reduce my work to a single idea that you can easily understand, because the central idea is the completion of the scientific method using testimonial truth – which itself is something you can spend a couple of years thinking about all on its own.

    Learning propertarianism is pretty similar to learning law. It requires at least the same intellectual capacity, and at least the same amount of work *UNLESS* you have already been very lucky in life or born with precisely the right combination of personality traits.

    And it turns out that some people are smart enough or lucky enough that they can both identify patterns of problems it solves, and learn it more quickly because they’ve had the experience or the raw intellectual talent. But those people are few and far between.

    So don’t be a dork. Learn what you can. Learn what you can use. If this was easy someone would have been done by now. It’s a really, really hard problem and some of the greatest minds of the last century didn’t solve it. And the problem has been around for at least 2500 years.

    Truth is enough. But understanding what that means might take a long time. Which is why its so important to institutionalize these ideas. Because it’s far better to learn them environmentally then have to learn to CORRECT the errors of thought and RELEARN what truth means – and relearn the entire spectrum of knowledge in new terms.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-01 12:15:00 UTC

  • DRAFT THE DEANS OF PHILOSOPHY ARE MERELY “SHAMANS V3.0”. AND PHILOSOPHY MAY BE C

    DRAFT

    THE DEANS OF PHILOSOPHY ARE MERELY “SHAMANS V3.0”. AND PHILOSOPHY MAY BE COMPLETE.

    Now that I’ve worked with Acquisitionism, Testimonialism, and Propertarianism so long, it’s actually embarrassing to listen to the Deans of Philosophy talk about almost anything. Some of the heretofore “great minds” sound no better than Priests and Islamists – because in fact, that is all they are: shamans version three (shamans -> priests -> philosophers).

    And it’s not because they have ill intentions, but because they were seduced by and trained by others who were also seduced and trained by that technology of deception we call Supernaturalism(shaman), ‘Abrahamism’ (priest), and Idealism(Philosopher). – and they simply know no better. Meanwhile the Jurists carry on, as they have for five thousand years, practicing the only social science that we can demonstrate is practiced ratio-empirically and scientifically: the law of torts.

    As our populations increase, and cause and effect increase in distance, and civic and economic cooperation increases in distance, we have had but little choice to resort to intuition.

    And there are only three ways to solve that problem.

    … 1) Sciences and Skills(Direct Measurement and Training),

    … 2) Institutions and Technologies (Procedural and Environmental training and habituation),

    … 3) myths and histories (literary and Intuitionistic training and habituation).

    And we can speak in the (1) REAL: scientifically, procedurally, and historically – thereby appealing to evidence, and the utility of doing so or not;

    Or we can resort to speaking in the (2) IDEAL: by example(how to act), morally(general rules of right and wrong), and Mythically(instructional parable) thereby appealing to norms, and the others who may reject us if we don’t.

    Or we can resort to speaking in the (3) SUPERNATURAL – thereby appealing to scary monsters in authority who may harm us or deprive us if we don’t.

    Each technique appeals to different incentives using different language, but which of them is ‘true’? Which is analogy? And which is but a ghost story?

    Now the problem is, that all of us exist in a matrix of distributions.

    I understand the …

    … (4) Intuitionistic<->Rational Spectrum of:

    {Dream -> Imagination -> Reason-> Calculation};

    and the…

    … (5) Experiential<->Analytic Spectrum of:

    {(female)Psychotic -> solipsistic -> rational -> aspie -> autistic(male)}.

    And lastly, I am fairly sure that intelligence is separate from the prey drive, but that the spectrum of…

    … (6) Demonstrated Intelligence -> Potential Demonstrated Intelligence…

    …is limited by the …

    … (7) Experiential(female)<->Analytic(male) spectrum.

    And I understand (And this might blow your mind), that those differences are differences in the genetic dominance or weakness of different reward systems of the PREY DRIVE – because after all, all human behavior evolved from exaggerations of the prey drive. It’s all nature had to work with: Prey Drive (including sex drive).

    And among humans the selection pressure is either neotonic or its opposite. (Understanding as we must, that humans are *increasing* in aggression in some sub-races, tribes and clans, just a it has been decreasing in others.)

    And I understand that dreaming is a cheap way of searching for opportunities, and intuition is a cheap way of reasoning. And that aggression (in the feminine-Semitic) is, unlike its opposite (masculine-WestSlavic), a cheap means of competition. [1]

    So the *expensive* method of group evolutionary strategy consists of …

    … (8) {Rational, Autistic, West-Slavic and Productive with high investment parenting and low rates of reproduction and high technological achievement},…

    … and the cheap method of group evolutionary strategy consists of …

    … (9) {Intuitionistic, Experiential, Semitic with high rates of reproduction and low technological achievement}.

    And it may not be obvious that (8) and (9) correspond to specializations between the masculine:(8) and feminine:(9) genetic strategies.

    The universe is constructed of very, very, simple rules, and very, very, few of them. Evolution operates in predictable ways, by incrementally building upon what it already has to work with. It’s not complicated.

    And that leads us to a problem we must solve: just how many humans are in fact capable of reason? Or stated more precisely: of that spectrum of humans who depend upon the spectrum from Pure Intuition <-to-> Pure Reason, what percent of their number are *sufficiently* capable of reason that we can say they rely on reason for their judgements?

    The strategy that we operated during out rather rapid and exceptional development was to embrace the real. Only europeans and east asians stood with the real. The Semites, West Asians, Central Asians, Indians and Africans ‘took the mystical’ route.

    So here is the core of the problem ( UNDONE : describe how suggestion works during listening )

    The question remains whether if Abrahamism had not been in invented by the introduction of greek thought into Jewish animism, creating rabbinical judaism, spawning christianity, spawning that most disastrous of inventions: islam, whether the world would have suffered in a thousand year dark age. Likely not. We have experienced the Bronze age collapse and Dark Age, the Abrahamic Dark Age, and it appears that without some change, we will enter into the second Abrahamic Dark Age, this time not with mysticism, but with pseudoscience and outright lying: Marx, Cantor, Freud, Adorno(frankfurt), and the French School of Postmodernists, appealing once again to women (feminism), and immigrants into the empire (third worlders.).

    SOVEREIGNTY:

    “-From Reals to Feels-“:

    ————————–

    Metaphysics: Vitruvianism: Man is the measure of all things man (cog. sci.)

    Psychology: Acquisitionism: Man acquires and defends.

    Sociology: Intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy.

    Ethics and Morality: Propertarianism.

    Epistemology: Testimonialism.

    Law: Reciprocity: The Natural Law of Reciprocity

    Politics: Markets in Everything.

    Strategy: Transcendence (Agency, Sovereignty, Heroism)

    Spirituality: Masculine Stoicism, Feminine Epicureanism, Ritual Familialism, Feast Naturalism, Festival Nationalism.

    Aesthetics: Excellence(heroism), Beauty(Plenty), and Commons(Morality[‘good’])

    As arrogant as it sounds, I am pretty sure that the philosophical program is complete. Why? Because the limit of man’s ability is the limit of man’s ability. And further refinement would require further refinement of the biological distribution we call ‘man’. And refutation would require a choice of devolution and dysgenia.

    So I know it sounds crazy. But I am pretty sure ‘philosophy’ in the sense of the European philosophical project begun by the Europeans, articulated by the Greeks, and operationalized by the Romans (and destroyed by the Abrahamists) is now complete. And everything else is just one lie or another to advance either a dysgenic or parasitic or homicidal or genocidal alternative. And I am pretty certain I can defeat all comers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    [1] Note: The Japanese have created demonstrably the best society, thanks partially to their island. But excessive neoteny, failure to tolerate truth regardless of cost to the status quo, and their Asiatic language inhibits them – although less than the Chinese. And FWIW: The Africans have evolved for higher sociability, and greater physical hardship, and greater disease resistance, in a survivable, but extremely hostile geography. It is incorrect to assess them otherwise. Our races and subraces and tribes reflect the geographies that we evolved in. )


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-31 18:24:00 UTC

  • OPERATIONALISM VS LOGIC. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES? —“Is your truth criteria of

    OPERATIONALISM VS LOGIC. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES?

    —“Is your truth criteria of mere pragmatic nature? It’s not like you can even talk about binary truth without formal logic, first predicate logic and some notion of a formal system.”—Timo Rohner

    Great question.

    Is decidability binary or ternary? Well, its ternary. True, Undecidable, False.

    Why rely on binary logic? Deducibility.

    Why Deducibility? (self reference) Logic is only a test of internal consistency.

    What problems were Frege and Pierce trying to solve? Mathematics.

    What problems did it not solve? Paradoxes.

    What minor problems does operationalism solve? There are no paradoxes.

    What major problems does operationalism solve? Lying. Fraud. Pretense of knowledge. (problems not present in mathematics).

    What is the difference between mathematics and law? Action.

    How can we test without self reference? existential possibility.

    How does formal logic perform its function? Symbolic parsimony and self reference.

    How does operationalism perform its function? Full expansion, and reference to the full set of dimensions of reality, (The opposite approach)

    How do the logics differ? Justificationary versus Critical (survival from falsification).

    What is the difference between analytic truth ( 2+2=4) and testimonial truth (I promise that the cat will appear black)? Logical versus Scientific.

    Can everything expressible in operationalism be expressed in predicate logic? No. Just as mathematics cannot express law.

    Can everything expressible in predicate logic be expressed in operationalism? Yes. Just as law can express more than mathematics.

    Is operationalism a formal grammar? Of course. All language consists of formal grammar, the problem is removing the untestable statements from the language. In the case of english, that’s the verb ‘to-be’ (the copula).

    Which has more explanatory power? Operationalism.

    Mathematics and logic do not produce truth statements, but proofs of internal consistency.

    Science and testimony in operational language produce truth statements: proofs of consistency in all dimensions: categorical, logical, empirical, operational (action algorithmic), rational (choice), reciprocal (moral), and scope complete (parsimony,limits, and full accounting ).

    But the more practical answer is, (a) why are the foundations of mathematics expressed in ideal rather than real (operational) terms? (b) Why do people study predicate logic if it merely ‘trains’ you to think rigorously, but not rationally or morally in the full scope of questions?

    My position remains that cantor and Frege caused a century of nonsense in mathematics (as predicted by poincare) equal to the damage caused by Marx, Boaz, Freud, and Adorno.

    Mathematics is a trivial discipline in construction if stated in operational language. So is logic. So is argument. So is law. They differ only in the scope of grammar we include in order to reference the subset of dimensions of reality we include in our argument.

    So… why would we EVER include only a subset of reality?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-29 06:21:00 UTC

  • You know, I thought completing science was enough, but now I have to defeat 20th

    You know, I thought completing science was enough, but now I have to defeat 20th century Logic as a sh-t-replacement for law – a hangover from hermeneutic interpretation of scripture.

    1) Imagination(Ideation – Free Association) ->

    2) …. Science(Deflation – Hypothesis) >

    3) …. …. Algorithmic Natural Law(Construction – Theory) >

    4) …. …. …. Mathematics( Description – Law) >

    There is nothing in formal logic that is not better provided with algorithmic law.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-28 13:57:00 UTC